







<S>^ f\V . « • - *fc- 



















S^u 












'- o 1 







A^^ 

















a ^^ 













Co : '^K*: "of :Mtc': to* 

vv 



> 1 vv • 



**o* 



O. ' ..s 

O^ . • " • * ^c 






PRICE SIX CENTS. 



SPEECH 



OF THE 



HON. HENRY CLAY, 



' OF KENTUCKY, 



(Dtt Inking an {lis CDrnprnmist Ursnlutinns nti tjjt |ulijtrt nf 

linnrri[. 



DELIVERED IN SENATE, FEB. 5th &, 6th, 1850. 



As Reported by the National Intelligencer. 



NEW YORK: 
STRINGER & TOWNSEND, 

220 BROADWAY. 
1850. 



ORTU.AIT OF HO*. IIDMtY CLAY, Superbly Engraved mi Mid. from a 
laguerreotype by Anlbony, for nalc bj' Stringer A lownstiid. Price 25 
cuts. A liberal discount to Hie trade 



Cnrapnuiou to tjjp jfirlii fpiti nf Unrtjj iJlmrrirn. 




FRANK FORESTER'S FISH AND FISHING 

OP THE UNITED STATES AND BRITISH PROVINCES. 

Illustrated from Nature by the Au-hor, with Seventy-five highly finished Engravings. 
BY HENRY WILLIAM HERBERT, ESQ., 

Author of " Field Sports," " My Shooting Box" " The Deer Stalkers," $c. 
1 vol., handsomely bound in cloth, price $2 CO. 

NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 

"This is really an elegant, as well as charming and interesting work. The publishers have 
evidently taken pride in preparing a book on American fish and fishing, an 1 have spire I no 
expense on (heir part to make the work all that it ousht to be. We know of no book on American 
fishes and fishins equal to it in value and interest, alike to the sportsman and naturalist." — Corii- 
mercial Advertiser. 

"Frank Forester's Fish and Fishing.— This is a continuation of the 'Field Sports' by 
the same Author, published some time since, and which was so much commended both in England 
and America. Ol a style of literature which has always been popular, it is calculated to take by 
the side of "Old Izaak' and 'Sir Humphrey Davy's Silmonia." The designs, if we mistake not, 
from which the engravings are made, are by Mr. Herbert himself— a passionate lover of the sport, 
and therefore both accurate and beautiful." — N. Y. Express. 

"Frank Forester's Fish and Fishing in the United States and British Pro- 
vinces of North America, is a beautifully printed book, and ornamente I with superb 
engravings of the most popular fish, which look luscious enough to mike one foil I of the pisca- 
tory art." Herbert writes like an enthusiastic disciple of old Izaak Walton, an I this work will 
enhance his already brilliant reputation. All who are fond of the spon should procure copies." — 
N. O. Delta. 

"Fish and Fishery op the United States and British Provinces is the title of an 
elegant book by II, VV. Herbert, just published by Stringer <fc Townsend. It is very full in 
its descriptions of the various fish known to our waters, and contains a great number of cuts by 
way of illustrations. It is one of the mon elegant books of the season, and mu3t be especially wel- 
come to naturalists and sportsmen." — Courier and Enquirer. 

" Mr. Herbert no Ions time aeo drew forth warm thanks and hearty commendations from the 
sporting public for his able treatise on the game of Norlh America, both bird and beast ; he Ins 
now completed his labors in this line by leaving earth and air, descending into the deep, and 
bringing up for our contemplation the members of ihe finny tribe. To say that Mr. II. has far sur- 
passed all who have preceded him on this subject, in fulness and accuracy of detail, in complete- 
ness of practical directions, in interest, and beauty of style, is conceding him no more than his 
desert. We are proud of Fish and Fishing.'— The illustrations are in the best style of engraving 
and some of them are exceedingly spirited. The typography is an honor to American ar:."— 
Literary American. 



SPEECH 



OF THE 



1. HEIRY CLAY, 



OF KENTUCKY, 



Oa taking up his Compromise Resolutions on the Subject of Slavery. 



DELIVERED IN SENATE, FEB. 5th & 6th, 1850, 



(As Reported by the National Intelligencer .) 



' NEW YORK 
STRINGER & TOWNSEND, 222 Broadwat. 

1850. 



^ 



i#3> 



O 



\%t 



ME. CLAY'S COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. 

SUBMITTED JANUARY 29TH. 1850. 



PREAMBLE. — It being desirable for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union of these States, 
tosettleuud adjust amicably all questions of controversy between them arising out of the institution of 
Slavery, up;m a fair equality and just basis— therefore — 

First— RESOLVED, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be 
admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction to the 
exclusion or introduction of Slavery within those boundaries. 

2d— RESOLVED, That as Slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any 
of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Con- 
gress to provide, by law, either for its introduction into, or its exclusion from, any part of the said terri- 
tory ; and that appropriate territorial Governments ought to be established, by Congress, in all of the 
said territory not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the addition 
9f any restriction or condition on the subject of Slavery. 

3d— RESOLVED, That the Western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the 
Rio ilel Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the Southern 
line of New Mexico, thence with that line Eastwardly, and continuing in the same direction, to the 
line as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether 
lying o.'i the East or West of that river. 

4th— RESOLVED, That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that the United States will provide for 
the payment of all that portion of all the legitimate and bona lide public debts of that State contract- 
ed prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledg- 
ed by tbe saiii State to its creditors, rot exceeding the sum of dollars, in consideration of the du- 
ties, as pledged, having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having 
thenceforward become payable to the United States, and upon the condition also that the said 
State shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature, or of a convention, relinquish to the 
United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico. 

5th— RESOLVED, That it is inexpedient to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, while that 
institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the 
consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within 
the District. 

Gtn — RESOLVED, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District the trade in slaves brought 
into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein, as merchandise, 
or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia. 

7th— RESOLVED, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the re- 
quirements of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor, 
in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory of this Union. 

8th — RESOLVED, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between 
the siavehulding States, and that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another 
of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular law. 



In Exchange 

University 
AUG 1 9 1936 



THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 



SPEECH. 



Me. Clay. — Mr. President, never on any former occasion have I risen under feelings of 
such painful solicitude. I have seen many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of danger in 
this country, and I have never before risen to address any assemblage so oppressed, so appall- 
ed, and so anxious ; and sir, I hope it will not be out of place to do here, what again and 
again I have done in my private chamber, to implore of Him who holds the destinies of nations 
and individuals in His hands, to bestow upon our country His blessing, to calm the violence and 
rage of party, to still passion, to allow reason once more to resume its empire. And may I 
not ask of Him too, sir, to bestow on his humble servant now before him the blessing of his 
smiles, and of strength and ability to perform the work which now lies before him ? Sir, I 
have said that I have seen other anxious periods in the history of our country, and if I were 
to venture, Mr. President, to trace, to their original source the cause of all our present dan- 
gers, difficulties, and distraction, I should ascribe it to the violence and intemperance of party 
spirit. To party spirit ! Sir, in the progress of this session we have had the testimony of two 
Senators here, who, however they may differ on other matters, concur in the existence of 
that cause in originating the unhappy differences which prevail throughout the country, on 
the subject of the institution of slavery. 

Parties, in their endeavors to obtain the one ascendancy over the other, catch at everv 
passing or floating plank in order to add strength and power to each. We have been told 
by the two Senators to whom I have referred, that each of the parties at the North, in its 
turn, has moved and endeavored to obtain the assistance of a small party called abolitionists, 
in order that the scale in its favor might preponderate against that of its adversary. And all 
around us, every where, we see too many evidences of the existence of the spirit and intem- 
perance of party. I might go to other legislative bodies than that which is assembled in Con- 
gress, and I might draw from them illustrations of the melancholy truth upon which I am 
dwelling, but I need not pass out of this capitol itself. I say it, sir, with all deference and 
respect to that other portion of Congress assembled in the other wing of this capitol ; but what 
have we seen there ? During this very session one whole week has been exhausted — I think 
about a week — in the vain endeavor to elect a doorkeeper of the House. 

And, Mr. President, what was the question in this struggle to elect a doorkeeper? It was 
not as to the man or the qualities of the man, or who is best adapted to the situation. It was 
whether the doorkeeper entertained opinions upon certain national measures coincident with 
this or that side of the House. That was the sole question which prevented the election of 
a doorkeeper for about the period of a week. Sir, I make no reproaches — none, to either 
portion of that House ; I state the fact ; and I state the fact to draw from it the conclusion 
and to express the hope that there will be an endeavor to check this violence of party. 

Sir, what vicissitudes do we not pass through in this short mortal career of ours? Eight 
years, or nearly eight years ago, 1 took my leave finally, and, as I supposed, forever, from 
this body. At that time I did not conceive of the possibility of ever again returning to it. 
And if my private wishes and particular inclinations, and "the desire during the short remnant 
of my days to remain in repose and quiet, could have prevailed, you would never have seen 
me occupying the seat which I now occupy upon this floor. The Legislature of the State 
to which I belong, unsolicited by me, chose to designate me for this station, and I have come 
here, sir, in obedience to a sense of stern duty, with no personal objects, no private views, 
now or hereafter, to gratify. I know, sir, the jealousies, the fears, the apprehensions which 
are engendered by the existence of that party spirit to which I have referred ; but if there 
be in my hearing now, in or out of this Capitol, any one who hopes, in his race for honors 



and elevation, for higher honors and higher elevation than that which he may occupy, I beg 
him to believe that I, at least, will never jostle him in the pursuit of those honors or that 
elevation. I beg him to be perfectly persuaded that, if my wishes prevail, my name shall 
never be used in competition with his. I beg to assure him that when my service is termi- 
nated in this body, my mission, so far as respects the public affairs of this world and upon 
this earth, is closed, and closed, if my wishes prevail, forever. 

But, sir, it is impossible for us to be blind to the facts which are daily transpiring before us. 
It is impossible for us not to perceive that party spirit and future elevation mix more or less 
in all our affairs, in all our deliberations. At a moment when the White House itself is in 
danger of conflagration, instead of all hands uniting to extinguish the flames, we are con- 
tending about who shall be its next occupant. When a dreadful crevasse has occurred, which 
threatens inundation and destruction to all around it, we are contesting and disputing about 
the profits of an estate which is threatened with total submersion. 

Mr. President, it is passi jn, passion — party, party, and intemperance — that is all I dread in 
the adjustment of the great questions which unhappily at this time divide our distracted country. 
Sir, at this moment we have in the legislative bodies of this Capitol and in the States twenty 
odd furnaces in full blast, emitting heat, and passion, and intemperance, and diffusing them 
throughout the whole extent of this broad land. Two months ago all was calm in compari- 
son to the present moment. All now is uproar, confusion and menace to the existence of the 
Union, and to the happiness and safety of this people. Sir, I implore Senators, I entreat 
them, by all that they expect hereafter, and by all that is dear to them here below, to repress 
the ardor of these passions, to look to their country, to its interests, to listen to the voice of 
reason — not as it shall be attempted to be uttered by me, for 1 am not so presumptuous as to 
indulge the hope that anything I may say will avert the effects which I have described, but 
to listen to their own reason, their own judgment, their own good sense, in determining upon 
what is best to be done for our country in the actual posture in which we find her. Sir, to this 
great object have my efforts been directed during the whole session. 

I have cut myself off from all the usual enjoyments of social life, I have confined myself 
almost entirely, with very few exceptions, to my own chamber, and from the beginning of the 
session to the present time my thoughts have been anxiously directed to the object of finding 
Bjme plan, of proposing some mode of accommodation, which would once more restore the 
lessings of concord, harmony and peace to this great country. I am not vain enough to 
kuppoae that I have been successful in the accomplishment of this object, but I have presented 
a scheme, and allow me to say to honorable Senators that, if they find in that plan any thing 
that is defective, if they find in it any thing that is worthy of acceptance, but is susceptible 
of improvement by amendment, it seems to me that the true and patriotic course is not to de- 
nounce it, but to improve it — not to reject without examination any project of accommodation 
having for its object the restoration of harmony in this country, but to look at it to see. if it be 
susceptible of elaboration or improvement, so as to accomplish the object which I indulge the 
hope is common to all and every one of us, to restore peace and quiet, and harmony and hap- 
piness to this country. 

Sir, when I came to consider this subjeet, there were two or three general purposes which 
itseemed to me to be most desirable, if possible, to accomplish. The one was, to settle all the 
controverted questions arising out of the subject of slavery. It seemed to me to be doing very 
little if we settled one question and left other distracting questions unadjusted, it seemed to me 
to be doing but little if we stopped one leak only in the ship of State, and left other leaks capa- 
ble of producing danger, if not destruction, to the vessel. I therefore, turned my attention to 
every subject connected with the institution of slavery, and out of which controverted ques- 
tions had sprung, to see if it were possible or practicable to accommodate and adjust the whole 
of them. Another principal object which attracted my attention was, to endeavor to form 
such a scheme of accommodation that neither of the two classes of States into which our 
country is so unhappily divided should make any sacrifice of any great principle. I believe, 
«ir, the series of resolutions which I have had the honor to present to the Se tate accomplishes 
that object. 

Sir, another purpose which I had in view was this : I was aware of the difference of opin- 
ion prevailing between these two classes of States. I was aware that, while one portion of 
the Union was pushing matters, as it seemed to me, to the greatest extremity, another por- 
tion of the Union was pushing them to an opposite, perhaps not less dangerous extremity. 
It appeared to me, then, that if any arrangement, any satisfactory adjustment could be made 
of the controverted questions between the two classes of States, that adjustment, that arrange- 
ment, could only be successful and effectual by extracting from both parties some concessions 
— not of principle, not of principle at all, but of fecliug, of opinion, in relation to matters in 



§ 

controversy between them. Sir, I believe the resolutions which I have preparea fulfi Ithat 
object. I believe, sir, that you will find, upon that careful, rational, and attentive examina- 
tion of them which I think they deserve, that neither party in some of them make any con- 
cession at all ; in others the concessions of forbearance are mutual ; and in the third place, 
in reference to the slaveholding States, there are resolutions making concessions to them 
by the opposite class of States, without any compensation whatever being rendered by them 
to the non-slaveholding States. I think every one of these characteristics which I have as- 
signed, and the measures which I proposed, is susceptible of clear and satisfactory demon- 
stration by an attentive perusal and critical examination of the resolutions themselves. Let 
us take up the first resolution. 

The first resolution, Mr. President, as you are aware, relates to California, and it declares 
that California, with suitable limits, ought to bo admitted as a member of this Union, without 
the imposition of any restriction either to interdict or to introduce slavery within her limits. 
Weil now, is there any concession in this resolution by either party to the other? I know 
that gentlemen who come from slaveholding States say the North gets all that it desires ; but 
by whom does it get it ? Does it get it by any action of Congress ? If slavery be interdicted 
within the limits of California, has it been done by Congress — by this Government ? No, 
sir. That interdiction is imposed by California herself. And has it not been the doctrine of 
all parties that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, the State has a right to 
decide for itself whether it will or will not have slavery within its limits? 

The great principle, sir, which was in contest upon the memorable occasion of the intro- 
duction of Missouri into the Union, was, whether it was competent or not competent for 
Congress to impose any restriction which should exist after she became a member of the 
Union. We who were in favor of the admission of Missouri contended that no such restric- 
tion should be imposed. We contended that, whenever she was once admitted into the 
Union, she had all the rights and privileges of any pre-existing State in the Union, and that 
among these rights and privileges one was to decide for herself whether slavery should or 
should not exist within her limits ; that she had as much a right to decide upon the intro- 
duction of slavery or its abolition as New York had a right to decide upon the introduction 
or abolition of slavery ; and that, although subsequently admitted, she stood among her peers, 
equally invested with all the privileges that any one of the original thirteen States had a right 
to enjoy. 

And so, sir, I think that those who have been contending with so much earnestness and 
perseverance for the Wilmot proviso ought to reflect that, even if they could carry their ob- 
ject and adopt the proviso, it ceases the moment any State or territory to which it was ap- 
plicable came to be admitted as a member of the Union. Why, sir, no one contends now, 
no one believes, that with regard to those Northwestern States to which the ordinance of 
1787 applied — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan — no one can now believe but that any- 
one of those States, if they thought proper to do it, have just as much right to introduce sla- 
very within their borders, as Virginia has to maintain the existence of slavery within hers. 
Then, sir, if in the struggle for power and empire between the two classes of States a deci- 
sion in California has taken place adverse to the wishes of the Southern States, it is a deci- 
sion not made by the General Government. 

It is a decision respecting which they can utter no complaint toward the General Govern- 
ment. It is a decision made by California herself; which California had unquestionably the 
right to make under the Constitution of the United States. There is, then, in the first resolu- 
tion, according to the observation which I made some time ago, a case where neither party 
concedes ; where the question of slavery, neither its introduction nor interdiction, is decided 
in reference to the action of this Government ; and if it has been decided, it has been by a 
different body — by a different power — by California itself, who had a right to make the 
decision. 

Mr. President, the next resolution in the series which I have offered I beg gentlemen can- 
didly now to look at. I was aware, perfectly aware, of the perseverance with which the Wil- 
mot proviso was insisted upon. I knew that everyone of the free States in this Union, with- 
out exception, had by its legislative body passed resolutions instructing their Senators and 
requesting their Representatives to get that restriction incorporated in any territorial govern- 
ment which might be established under the auspices of Congress. I knew how much, and I 
regretted how much, the free States had put their hearts upon the adoption of this measure. 
In the second resolution I call upon them to waive persisting in it. I ask them, for the sake 
of peace and in the spirit of mutual forbearance to other members of the Union, to give it up 
— to no longer insist upon it — to see, as they must see, if their eyes are open, the dangers 
which lie ahead, if they persevere in insisting upon it. 

When I called upon them in this resolution to do this, was I not bound to offer,for a stir- 



reuder of that favorite principle or measure of theirs, some compensation, not as an equiva- 
lent by any means, but some compensation in the spirit of mutual forbearance, which, ani- 
mating one side, ought at the same time to actuate the other side ? Well, sir, what is it that 
is offered them ? It is a declaration of what I characterized, and must still characterize, 
with great deference to all those who entertain opposite opinions, as two truths, I will not 
say incontestible, but to me clear, and I think they ought to be regarded as indisputable 
truths. What are they? The first is, that by law slavery no longer exists in any part of 
the acquisitions made by us from the Republic of Mexico ; and the other is, that in our opin- 
ion, according to the probabilities of the case, slavery never will be introduced into any por- 
tion of the territories so acquired from Mexico. Now, I have heard it said that this declara- 
tion of what I call these two truths is equivalent to the enactment of the Wilmot proviso. 

I have heard this asserted, but is that the case ? If the Wilmot proviso be adopted in ter- 
ritorial Governments established over these countries acquired from Mexico, it would be a 
positive enactment, a prohibition, an interdiction as to the introduction of slavery within 
them; but with regard to these opinions I had hoped, and I shall still indulge the hope, that 
those who represent the free States will be inclined not to insist — indeed it would be extremely 
difficult to give to these declarations the form of positive enactment. I had hoped that they 
would be satisfied with the simple expression of the opinion of Congress, leaving it upon the 
basis of that opinion, without asking for what seems to me almost impracticable, if not im- 
possible — for any subsequent enactment to be introduced into the bill by which territorial Go- 
vernments should be established. 

And I can only say that the second resolution, even without the declaration of these two 
truths expressed, would be much more acceptable to me than with them — but I could not 
forget that I was proposing a scheme of arrangement and compromise, and I could not, there- 
fore, depart from the duty which the preparation of such a scheme seems to mc to impose, of 
offering, while we ask the surrender on one side, of a favorite measure, of offering to the other 
side some compensation for that surrender or sacrifice. What are the truths, Mr. President? 
The first is, that by law slavery does not exist within the territories ceded to us by the repub- 
lic of Mexico. It is a misfortune, sir, in the various weighty and important topics which are 
connected with the subject that I am now addressing you upon, that any one of the five 
or six furnishes a theme for a lengthened speech ; and I am therefore reduced to the necessity, 
I think — at least in this stage of the discussion — of limiting myself rather to the expression 
of opinions, than going at any great length into the discussion of all these various topics. 

Now, with respect to the opinion here expressed, that slavery does not exist in the terri- 
tories ceded to the United States by Mexico, I can only refer to the fact of the passage of 
the law by the Supreme Government of Mexico abolishing it, I think in 1824, and to the 
subsequent passage of a law by the legislative body of Mexico, I forget in what year, by 
which they proposed — what it is true they have never yet carried into full effect — com- 
pensation to the owners of slaves for the property of which they were stripped by the act of 
abolition. I can only refer to the acquiescence of Mexico in the abolition of slavery, from 
the time of its extinction dowu to the time of the treaty by which we acquired these coun- 
tries. But all Mexico, so far as I know, acquiesced in the non-existence of slavery. Gentle- 
men, I know, talk about the irregularity of the law by which that act was accomplished ; 
but does it become us, a foreign power, to look into the mode by which an object has been 
accomplished by another foreign power, when she herself is satisfied with what she has 
done, and when, too, she is the exclusive judge whether an object which is local and muni- 
cipal to herself has been or has not been accomplished in conformity with her fundamental 
laws? Why, Mexico upon this subject showed to the last moment, her anxiety in the docu- 
ments which were laid before the country upon the subject of the negotiation of this treatv, 
by Mr. Trist. 

In the very act, in the very negotiation by which the treaty was concluded, ceding to us 
the countries in question, the diplomatic representatives of the Mexican republic urged the 
abhorrence with which Mexico would view the introduction of slavery into any portion of 
the territory which she was about to cede to the United States. The clause of prohibition 
was not inserted in consequence of the firm ground taken by Mr. Trist, and his declaration 
that it was an utter impossibility to mention the subject. 

I take it then, sir — and availing myself of the benefit of the discussions which took place 
on a former occasiou on this question, and which I think have left the whole country under 
the impression of the non-existence of slavery within the whole of the territory in the ceded 
territories — I take it for granted that what I have said, aided by the reflecuon of gentlemen, 
will satisfy them of that first truth, that slavery does not exist there by law, unless slavery 
was carried there the moment the treaty was latified by the two parties, and under the 
operation of the Constitution of the United States. Now, really, I must say that upon the 



idea that eo instanti upon the consummation of the treaty, the Constitution of the United 
States spread itself over the acquired territory, and carried along with it the institution oT 
slavery, the proposition is so irreconcilable with any comprehension or reason that 1 possess, 
that I hardlv know how to meet it. 

Whv these United States consist of thirty States. In fittcen of them .lure was 
slaverv in fifteen of them slavery did not exist. Well, how can it be argued that the fifteen 
slave States, by the operation of the Constitution of the United States, earned into the ceded 
territory their institution of slavery, any more than it can be argued on the other side that, 
bv the operation of the same Constitution, the fifteen free States carried into the ceded terri- 
tory the principle of freedom which they from policy have chosen to adopt within their 
limits? Whv, sir, let me suppose a case. Let me imagine that Mexico had never abol- 
ished slaver/ there at all-let me suppose that it was existing in point ot fact and m virtue 
of law, from the shores of the Pacific to those of the Gulf of Mexico, at the moment of the 
cession of these countries to us by the treaty in question. 

With what patience would gentlemen coming from slaveholdmg States listen to any argu- 
ment which should be urged by the free States, that notwithstanding the existence o, sla- 
very within those territories, the constitution of the United States abolished it the moment rt 
operated upon and took effect in the ceded territory ? Well is there not just as much 
ground to contend that, where a moiety of the States is free, and the other moiety is slave- 
holding, the principle of freedom which prevails in the one class shall operate as much as the 
principle of slavery which prevails in the other? Can you come, amidst this conflict of 
interests, principles and legislation which prevails in the two parts of the Union, to any 
other conclusion than that which I understand to be the conclusion of the public law of he 
world, of reason, and justice-that the status of law, as it existed at the moment of the 
conquest or the acquisition, remains until it is altered by the sovereign authority o( the 
conquering or acquiring power? That is the great principle which you can scarcely urn 
over a pa<re of public law of the world without finding recognised, and everywhere estab- 
lished The laws of Mexico, as they existed at the moment of the cession of the ce».ed 
territories to this country, remained the laws until, and unless, they were altered by that 
new sovereign power which this people and these territories come under, in consequence ot 
the treaty of cession to the United States. . . „■■•.„ ,„„v 

I think then, Mr. President, that, without trespassing farther, or exhausting the little stock 
of strength which I have, and for which I shall have abundant use in the progress ol the 
argument, I may leave that part of the subject, with two or three observation, only upon 
the general power which I think appertains to this Government on the subject of slavery. 

Sir, before I approach that subject, allow me to say that, in my humble judgment, the 
institution of slavery presents two questions totally distinct, and resting on entirely different 
-rounds— slavery within the States, and slavery without the States. Congress, the General 
Government has no power, under the Constitution of the United States, to touch slavery 
within the States, except in the three specified particulars in that instrument ; to adjust the 
subject of representation ; to impose taxes when a system of direct taxation is made ; and to 
perform the duty of surrendering, or causing to be delivered up, fugitive slaves, that may 
escape from service which they owe in slave States, and take refuge in free States. And, 
sir I am ready to say that if Congress were to attack, within the States, the i institoum ot 
slavery, for the purpose of the overthrow or extinction of slavery, then, Mr. 1 resideut, my 
voice would be for war ; then would be made a case which would justify in the sight 01 God, 
and in the presence of the nations of the earth, resistance on the part of the slave States to 
such an unconstitutional and usurped attempt as would be made on the supposition winch 1 

have stated. .... c *., 

Then we should be acting in defence of our rights, our domicils, our property, cur satetj , 
our lives ; and then, I think, would be furnished a case in which the slaveholdmg Mates 
would be justified by all considerations which pertain to the happiness and security ot man, 
to employ every instrument which God or nature had placed in their hands to resist such art 
attempt on the part of the free States. And then, if unfortunately civil war should break 
out, and we should present to the nations of the earth the spectacle of one portion ol tins 
Union endeavoring to subvert an institution in violation of the Constitution and the most 
sacred obligations which can bind men ; wo should present the spectacle in which we should 
have the sympathies, the good wishes, and the desire for our success of all men who love 
justice and truth. Far different, I fear, would be our case— if unhappily we should be 
plunged into civil war— if the two parts of this country should be placed in a position hostile 
toward each other, in order to carry slavery into the new territories acquired from Mexico. 

Mr. President, wo have heard, all of us have read of the efforts of France to propagate— 
what, on the continent of 'Europe ? Not slavery, sir ; not slavery, but the rights ol man ; 



8 

and we fenow the fate of her efforts in a wcrk of that kind. But if the two portions of this 
Confederacy should unhappily be involved in civil war, in which the effort on the one side 
would be to restrain the introduction of slavery into new territories, and on the other side to 
force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present to the contemplation of 
astonished mankind ! An effort not to propagate light, but I must say — though I trust it 
will be understood to be said with no desire to excite feeling — an effort to propagate wrong 
in the territories thus acquired from Mexico. It would be a war in which we should have 
no sympathy, no good wishes, and in which all mankind would be against us, and in which 
our own history itself would be against us; for, from the commencement of the revolution 
down to the present time, we have constantly reproached our British ancestors for the intro- 
duction of slavery into this country ; and allow me to say that, in my opinion, it is one of 
the best defences which can be made to preserve the institution in this country, that it was 
forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, our own colonial ancestors, and by the 
cupidity of our British commercial ancestors. 

The power then, Mr. President, in my opinion — and I will extend it to the introduction as 
well as the prohibition of slavery in the new territories — I think the power does exist in Con- 
gress, and I think there is that important distinction between slavery outside of the States 
and slavery inside of the States, ihat all outside is debatable, all inside of the States is unde- 
batable. The Government has no right to touch the institution within the States ; but 
whether she has, and to what extent she has the right or not to touch it outside of the States, 
is a question which is debatable, and upon which men may honestly and fairly differ, but 
which, decided however it may be decided, furnishes, in my judgment, no just oceasion for 
breaking up this happy and glorious Union of ours. 

Now, 1 am not going to take up that part of the subject which relates to the power of 
Congress to legislate either within this District — (I shall have occasion to make some obser- 
vations upon that when I approach the resolution relating to the District) — either within this 
District or the territories. But I must say, in a few words, that I think there are two sources 
of power, either of which is, in my judgment, sufficient to warrant the exercise of the power, 
if it was deemed proper to exercise it, either to introduce or to keep out slavery outside the 
States, within the territories. 

Mr. President, I shall not take up time, of which already so much has been consumed, to 
show that, according to my sense of the Constitution of the United States, or rather accord- 
ing to the sense in which the clause has been interpreted for the last fifty years, the clause 
which confers on Congress the power to regulate the territories and other property of the 
United States conveys the authority. 

Mr- President, with my worthy friend from Michigan — and I use the term in the best and 
most emphatic sense, for I believe he and I have known each other longer than he and I 
have known any other Senator in this hall — I cannot concur, although I entertain the most 
profound respect for the opinions he has advanced upon the subject, adverse to my own ; but 
I must say, when a point is settled by all the elementary writers of our country, by all the 
department of our Government, legislative, executive and judicial — when it has been so 
settled for a period of fifty years, and never was seriously disturbed until recently, that I 
think, if we are to regard any thing as fixed and settled under the administration of this 
constitution of ours, it is a question which has thus been invariably and uniformly settled in 
a particular way. Or are we to come to this conclusion that nothing, nothing on earth ia 
settled under this constitution, but that every thing is unsettled? 

Mr. President, we have to recollect it is very possible — sir, it is quite likely — that when 
that Constitution was framed, the application of it to such territories as Louisiana, Florida, 
California and^New Mexico was never within the contemplation of its framers. It will be 
recollected that when that Constitution was framed the whole country northwest of the river 
Ohio was unpeopled ; and it will be recollected also, that the exercise and the assertion of 
the power to make governments for territories in their infant state, are, in the nature of the 
power, temporary, and to terminate whenever they have acquired a population competent for 
self-government. Sixty thousand is the number fixed by the ordinance of 1787. Now, sir, 
recollect that when this Constitution was adopted, and that territory was unpeopled, is it pos- 
sible ihat Congress, to whom it had been ceded by the states for the common benefit of the 
Geding Slate and all other members of the Union — is it possible that Congress had no right 
whatever to declare what description of settlers should occupy the public lands? 

Suppose they took up the opinion that the introduction of slavery would enhance the value 
of the land, and enable them to conlmand for the public treasury a greater amount from 
that source of revenue than by the exclusion of slaves, would they not have had the right 
to. say, in fixing the rules, regulations, or whatever you choose to call them, for the govern- 



ment of that territory, that any one that chooses to bring slaves may bring them, if it will 
enhance the value of the property, in the clearing and cultivation of the soil, and add to the 
importance of the country "? Or take the reverse : — Suppose Congress might think that a 
greater amount of revenue would be derived from the waste lands beyond the Ohio river by 
the interdiction of slavery, would they not have a right to interdict it? Why, sir, remember 
how these settlements were made, and what was their progress. They began with a few. 
I believe that about Marietta the first settlement was made. 

It was a settlement of some two or three hundred persons from New England. Cincin- 
nati, I believe, was the next point where a settlement was made. It wa3 settled perhaps by 
a few persons from New Jersey, or some other State. Did those few settlers, the moment 
they arrived there, acquire sovereign rights? Had those few persons power to dispose of 
these territories? Had they even power to govern themselves — the handful of men who 
established themselves at Marietta or Cincinnati ? No, sir, the contemplation of th<s Con- 
stitution no doubt was, that, inasmuch as this power was temporary, as it is applicable to 
unpeopled territory, and as that territory will become peopled gradually, insensibly, until it 
reaches a population which may entitle it to the benefit of self-government, in the mean 
time it is right and proper that Congress, who owns the soil, should regulate the settlement 
of the soil, and govern the settlers on the soil, until those settlers acquire number and capa- 
city to govern themselves. 

Sir, I will not farther dwell upon this part of the subject ; but I said there is another 
source of power equally satisfactory, equally conclusive in my mind as that which relates to 
the territories, and that is the treaty-making power — the acquiring power. Now, I put it to 
gentlemen, is there not at this moment a power somewhere existing either to admit or ex- 
elude slavery from the ceded territory? It is not an annihilated power. This is impossible. 
It is a. subsisting, actual, existing power ; and where does it exist? It existed, I presume no 
one will controvert, in Mexico prior to the cession of these territories. Mexico could have 
abolished slavery or introduced slavery either in California or New Mexico. That must be 
conceded. Who will controvert this position? Well, Mexioo has parted from the territory 
and from the sovereignty over the territory ; and to whom did she transfer it ? She trans- 
ferred the territory and the sovereignty of the territory to the Government of the United 
States. 

The Government of the United States, then, acquires in sovereignty and in territory over 
California and New Mexico, all, either in sovereignty or territory, that Mexico held in Cali- 
fornia or New Mexico, by the cession of those territories. Sir, dispute that who can. The 
power exists or it does not; no one will contend for its annihilation. It existed in Mexico. 
No one, I think, can deny that. Mexico alienates the sovereignty over the territory, and her 
alienee is the Government of the United States. The Government of the United States, 
then, possesses all power which Mexico possessed over the ceded territories, and the Govern- 
ment of the United States can do in reference to them — within, I admit, certain limits of 
the Constitution — whatever Mexico could have done. There are prohibitions upon the power 
of congress within the constitution, which prohibitions, I admit, must apply to Congress 
whenever she legislates, whether for the old States or for new territories ; but, within those 
prohibitions, the powers of the United States over the ceded territories are co-extensive and 
equal to the power* of Mexico in the ceded territories, prior to the cession. 

Sir, in regard to this treaty-making power, all who have any occasion to examine into its 
character and to the possible extent to which it may be carried, know that it is a power un- 
limited in its nature, except in so far as any limitation may be found in the Constitution of 
the United States ; and upon this subject there is no limitation which prescribes the extent 
to which the powers should be exercised. I know, sir, it is argued that there is no grant of 
power in the constitution, in specific terms, over the subject of slavery any where ; and there 
is no grant in the Constitution to Congress specifically over the subject of a vast variety of 
matters upon which the powers of Congress may unquestionably operate. The major in- 
cludes the minor. The general grant of power comprehends all the particulars and elements 
of which that power consists. The power of acquisition by treaty draws after it the power 
of government of the country acquired. 

If there be a power to acquire, there must be, to use the language of the tribunal that sits 
below, a power to govern. I think, therefore, sir, without, at least for the present, dwelling 
farther on this part of the subject, that to the two sources of authority in Congress to which 
I have referred, and especially to the last, may be traced the power of Congress to act in 
the territories in question ; and, sir, I go to the extent, and I think it is a power in Congress 
equal to the introduction or exclusion of slavery. I admit the argument in both its forms; I 
admit if the argument be maintained that the power exists to exclude slavery, it necessarily 



10 

follows that the power must exist, if Congress choose to exercise it, to tolerate or introduce 
slavery within the territories. 

But, sir, I have been drawn off so far from the second resolution — not from the object of 
it, but from a particular view of it — that it has almost gone out of my recollection. The 
resolution asserts — 

" That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the 
territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for 
Congress to provide by law either for its introduction iuto or exclusion from any part of the 
said territory ; and that appropriate territorial Governments ought to be established by Con- 
gress in all of the said territory, not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed state of Cali- 
fornia, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery." 

The other truth which I respectfully and with great deference conceive to exist, and 
which is announced in this resolution, is, that slavery is not likely to be introduced into any 
of these territories. Well, sir, is not that a fact? Is there a member who hears me that 
will not confirm the fact? What has occurred within the last three months? In California, 
more than in any other portion of the ceded territory, was it most probable, if slavery was 
adapted to the interests of the industrial pursuits of the inhabitants, that slavery would have 
been introduced. Yet, within the space of three or four months, California herself has de- 
clared, by a unanimous vote of her convention, against the introduction of slavery within 
her limits. And, as I remarked on a former occasion, this declaration was not confined to 
non-slaveholders. 

There were persons from the slaveholding States who concurred in that declaration. Thus 
this fact which is asserted in the resolution is responded to by the act of California. Then, 
sir, if we come down to those mountain regions which are to be found in New Mexico, the 
nature of its soil and country, its barrenness, its unproductive character, every thing which 
relates to it, and everything which we hear of it and about it, must necessarily lead to the 
conclusion which I have mentioned, that slavery is not likely to he introduced into them. — 
Well, sir, if it be true that by law slavery does not now exist in the ceded territories, and 
that it is not likely to be introduced into the ceded territories — if you, Senators, agree to 
these truths, or a majority of you, as I am persuaded a large majority of you must agree to 
them — where is the ob|ection or the difficulty to your announcing them to the whole world? 
Why should you hesitate or falter in the promulgation of incontestable truths ? On the 
other hand, with regard to Senators coming from the free States, allow me here to make, 
with reference to California, one or two observations. 

When this feeling' within the limits of your States was gotten up ; when the Wilmot pro- 
viso was disseminated through them, and your people and yourselves attached themselves to 
that proviso, what was the state of facts ? The state of facts at that time was, that you 
apprehended the introduction of slavery there. You did not know much — very few of us 
now know much — about these very territories. They were far distant from you. You 
were apprehensive that slavery might be introduced there. You wanted as a protection to 
introduce the interdiction called the Wilmot proviso. It was in this state of want of infor- 
mation that the whole North blazed up in behalf of this Wilmot proviso. It was under the 
apprehension that slavery might be introduced there that you left your constituents. For 
when you came from home, at the time you left your respective residences, you did not know 
the fact, which has only reached us since the commencement of the session of Congress, 
that a constitution had been unanimously adopted by the people of California, excluding 
slavery from their territory. 

Well, now, let me suppose that two years ago it had been known in the free States that 
such a constitution would be adopted ; let me suppose that it had been believed that in no 
other portion of these ceded territories would slavery be introduced ; let me suppose that 
upon this great subject of solicitude, negro slavery, the people of the North had been per- 
fectly satisfied that there was no danger ; let me also suppose that they had foreseen the 
excitement, the danger, the irritation, the resolutions which have been adopted by Southern 
Legislatures, and the manifestations of opinion by the people of the slaveholding states — let 
me suppose that all this had been known at the North at the time when the agitation was 
first got up upon the subject of this Wilmot proviso — do you believe that it would have ever 
reached the height to which it has attained? Do any one of you believe it? And if, prior 
to your departure from your respective homes, you had had an opportunity of conferring 
with your constituents upon this most leading and important fact — of the adoption of a con- 
stitution excluding slavery in California — do you not believe, Senators and Representatives 
coming from the free States, that if you had the advantage of that fact told in serious, calm, 
fire-side conversation with your constituents, they would not have told you to come here and 
to settle all these agitating questions without danger to this Union? . 



11 

What do you want? What do you want who reside in the free States? You want that 
there shall be no slavery introduced into the territories acquired from Mexico. Well, have 
not you got it in California already, if admitted as a state ? Have not you got it in New 
Mexico, in all human probability, also ? What more do you want? You have got what is 
worth a thousand Wilmot provisos. You have got nature itself on your side. You have the 
fact itself on your side. You have the truth staring you in the face that no slavery is ex- 
isting there. Well, if you are men : if you can rise from the mud and slough of party strug- 
gles and elevate yourselves to the height of patriots, what will you do ? You will look at 
the fact as it exists. You will say, this fact was unknown to my people. You will say, 
they acted on one set of facts, we have got another set of facts here influencing us, and we 
will act as patriots, as responsible men, as lovers of unity, and above all of this Union. We 
will act on the altered set of facts unknown to our constituents, and we will appeal to their 
justice, their honor, their magnanimity, to concur with us on this occasion, for establishing 
concord and harmony, and maintaining the existence of this glorious Union. 

Well, Mr. President, I think, entertaining these views, that there was nothing extravagant in 
the hope in which I indulged when these resolutions were prepared and offered — nothing ex- 
travagant in the hope that the North might content itself even with striking out as unneces- 
sary these two declarations. They are unnecessary for any purpose the free States have in 
view. At all events, if they should insist upon Congress expressing the opinions which are 
here asserted, they should limit their wishes to the simple assertion of them, without insist- 
ing on their being incorporated in any territorial Government which Congress may establish 
in the territories. . 

I pass on from the second resolution to the third and fourth, which relate to Texas 
and allow me to say, Mr. President, that I approach the subject with a full knowledge of all 
its difficulties ; and of all the questions connected with or growing out of this institution of 
slavery, which Congress is called upon to pass upon and decide, there are none so difficult 
and troublesome as those which relate to Texas, because, sir, Texas has a question of boun- 
dary to settle, and the question of slavery, or the feelings connected with it, run into the 
question of boundary. The North, perhaps, will be anxious to contract Texas within the 
narrowest possible limits, in order to exclude all beyond her to make it a free territory ; the 
South, on the contrary, may be anxious to extend those sources of Rio Grande, for the pur- 
pose of creating an additional theatre for slavery ; and thus, to the question of the limits of 
Texas, and the settlement of her boundary, the slavery question, with all its troubles and 
difficulties, is added, meeting us at every step we take. 

There is, sir, a third question, also, adding to the difficulty. By the resolution of annexa- 
tion, slavery was interdicted in all north of 36° 30 ; but of New Mexico, that portion of it 
which lies northof 36° 30 embraces I think about one third of the whole of New Mexico east 
of the Rio Grande ; so that you have free and slave territory mixed, boundary and slavery 
mixed together, and all these difficulties are to he encountered. And allow me to say, sir, 
that among the considerations which induced me to think it was necessary to settle all these 
questions, was the state of things that now exists iii New Mexico, and the State of things to 
be apprehended both there and in other portions of the territories. Why, sir, at this moment — 
and 1 think I shall have the concurrence of the two Senators from that state when I an- 
nounce the fact — at this moment there is a feeling approximating to abhorrence on the 
part of the people of New Mexico at the idea of any union with Texas. 

Mr. Rusk. Only, sir, on the part of the office-seekers and army followers, who have set- 
tled there, and attempted to mislead the people. 

Mr. Clay. Ah ! Sir, that may be, and I am afraid that New Mexico is not the only 
place where this class composes a majority of the whole population of the country. — 
[Laughter.] 

Now, sir, if the questions are not settled which relate to Texas, her boundaries, and so 
forth, and to the territory now claimed by Texas and disputed by New Mexico — the territo- 
ries beyond New Mexico which are excluded from California — if these questions are not all 
settled, I think they will give rise to future confusion, disorder and anarchy there, and to agita- 
tion here. There will be, I have no doubt, a party still at the North crying out, if these 
questions are not settled this session, for the Wilmot proviso, or some other restriction upon 
them, and we shall absolutely do nothing, in my opinion, if we do not accommodate all 
these dfficulties and provide against the recurrence of all these dangers. 

Sir, with respect to the state of things in New Mexico, allow me to call the attention of 
the Senate to what I consider as the highest authority I could offer to them as to the state 
of things there existing. 1 mean the acts of their convention, unless that convention happens 
to have been composed altogether of office-seekers, office-holders, and so forth. Now, sir, 
I call your attention to what they say in depicting their own situation. 



12 

Mr. Underwood, at Mr. Clay's request, read the following extract from instructions 
adopted by the convention, appended to the journal of the convention of the territory of New 
Mexico, held at the city of Santa Fe, in September, 1849. 

" We. the people of New Mexico, in convention assembled, having elected a delegate 
to represent this territory in the Congress of the United States, and to urge upon the Su- 
preme Government a redress of our grievances, and the protection due to us as citizens of our 
common country, under the constitution, instruct him as follows: That whereas, for the 
last three years we have suffered under the panalyzing effects of a government undefined 
and doubtful in its character, inefficient to protect the rights of the people, or to discharge 
the high and absolute duty of every Government, the enforcement and regular admin- 
istration of its own laws, in consequence of which, industry and enterprise are paralyzed 
and discontent and confusion prevail throughout the land. The want of proper protec- 
tion against the various barbarous tribes of Indians that surround us on every side has pre- 
vented the extension of settlements upon our valuable public domain, and rendered utterly 
futile every attempt to explore or develope the great resources of the territory. 

" Surrounded by the Utahs, Camanches, and Apaches, on the North, East and South, 
by the Navajos on the West, with Jicarillas within our limits, and without any adequate- 
protection against their hostile inroads, our flocks and herds are driven off by thousands, our 
fellow-citizens, men, women and children, are murdered or carried into captivity. Many of 
our citizens, of all ages and sexes, are at this moment suffering all the horrors of barbarian 
bondage, and it is utterly out of our power to obtain their release from a condition to which 
death would be preferable. The wealth of our territory is being diminished. We have 
neither the means nor any adopted plan by Government for the education of the rising gene- 
ration. In fine, with a government temporary, doubtful, uncertain, and inefficient in cha- 
racter and in operation, surrounded and despoiled by barbarous foes, ruin appears inevitably 
before us, unless speedy and effectual protection be extended to us by the Congress of the 
United States." 

There is a series of resolutions, Mr. President, which any gentleman may look at, if he 
chooses ; but I think it is not worth while to take up the time of the Senate in reading 
them. 

That is the condition, sir, of New Mexico. Well, I suspect that to go beyond it, to go 
beyond the Rio Grande to the territory which is not claimed by Texas, you will not find a 
much better state of things. In fact, sir, I cannot for a moment reconcile it to my sens© 
of duly to suffer Congress to adjourn without an effort, at least, being made to extend the 
benefits, the blessings of government to those people who have recently been acquired 
by us. 

Sir, with regard to that portion of New Mexico which lies east of the Rio Grande, un- 
doubtedly if it is conceded to Texas, while she has two parties, disliking each other as much 
us those office-holders and office-seekers alluded to by the Senator from Texas, if they could 
possibly be drawn together and governed quietly, peacably, and comfortably, there might 
be a remedy, so far as relates to the country East of the Rio Grande ; but all beyond it — 
Deseret and the North of California — would be still open and liable to all the consequences 
of disunion, confusion and anarchy, without some staple government emanating from the 
authority of the nation of which they now compose a part, and with which they are but little 
acquainted. I think, therefore, that all these questions, difficult and troublesome as they 
may be, ought to be met — met in a spirit of candor and calmness, and decided upon as a 
matter of duty. 

, Now, these two resolutions which we have immediately under consideration propose 
a decision of these questions. I have said, sir, that there is scarcely a resolution in the 
series which I have offered that does not contain some mutual concession or evidence of 
mutual forbearance, where the concession was not altogether from the non-slaveholding to 
the slaveholding states. 

Now, with respect to this resolution proposing a boundary for Texas, what is it ? W« 
know the difference of opinion which has existed in this country with respect to that boun- 
dary. We know that a very large portion of the people of the United State- have supposed 
that the western limit of Texas was the- Nueces, and that if did not extend to the Rio 
Grande. We know, by the resolution of annexation, that the question of what is the wes- 
tern limit and the northern limit of Texas was an open question — that it has been all along 
an open question. It was an open question when the boundary was run, in virtue of the act 
of 1838, marking the boundary between the United States and Texas. Sir, at that time 
the boundary authorised by the act of 1838 was a boundary commencing at the mouth of 
the Sabine and running up to its head, thence to Red River, thence westwardly with Red 



13 

River to, I think, the hundredth degree of west longitude. Well, sir, that did not go so far 
as Texas now claims, and why 1 Because it was an open question. War was yet raging 
between Texas and Mexico ; it was not foreseen exactly what might he her ultimate limits. 
But sir, we will come to the question of what was done at the time of her annexation. 

The whole resolution which relates to the question of boundary, from beginning to end, 
assumes an open boundary, an unascertained, unfixed boundary to Texas on the West. Sir, 
what is the first part of the resolution ? It is that " Congress doth consent that the territory 
properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected 
into a new State." Properly including — rightfully belonging to. The resolution specifies no 
boundary. It could specify none. It has specified no western or northern boundary for 
Texas. It has assumed in this state of uncertainty what we know in point of fact existed. 
But then the latter part of it : " Said state to be formed subject to the adjustment of all ques- 
tions of boundary that may arise with other Governments, and the constitution thereof," &c. 
That is to say, she is annexed with her rightful and proper boundaries, without a specification 
of them; but inasmuch as it was known that these boundaries at the west and the north 
were unsettled, the Government of the United States retained to itself the power of settling 
with any foreign nation what the boundary should be. 

Now, sir, it is impossible for me to go into the whole question and to argue it fully. I 
mean to express opinions or impressions, rather than to go into the entire argument- The 
western and northern limit of Texas being unsettled, and the Government of the United 
States having retained the power of settling it, I ask, suppose the power had been exercised, 
and that there had been no cession of territory by Mexico to the United States, but that the 
negotiations between the countries had been limited simply to the fixation of the western and 
northern limits of Texas, could it not have been done by the United States and Mexico con- 
jointly ? Will any one dispute it 1 Suppose there had been a treaty of limits of Texas conclud- 
ed between Mexico and the United States, fixing the Nueces as the western limit of Texas, 
would not Texas have been bound by it? Why, by the express terms of the resolution she 
would have been bound by it; or if it had been the Colorado or the Rio Grande, or any other 
boundary, whatever western limit had been fixed by the joint action of the two powers, would 
have been binding and obligatory upon Texas by the express terms of the resolution by which 
she was admitted into the Union. Now, sir, Mexico and the United States conjointly, by 
treaty, might have fixed upon the western and northern limits of Texas, and if the United 
States have acquired by treaty all the subjects upon which the limits of Texas might have 
operated, have not the United States now the power solely and exclusively which Mexico and 
the United States conjointly possessed prior to the late treaty between the two countries ? It 
seems to me, sir, that this conclusion and reasoning are perfectly irresistible. If Mexico and 
the United States could have fixed upon any western limit for Texas, and did not do it, and 
if the United States have acquired to themselves, or acquired by the treaty in question, all the 
territory upon which the western limit must have been fixed, when it was fixed, it seems to 
me that no one can resist the logical conclusion that the Uuited States now have themselves 
a power to do what the United States and Mexico conjointly could have done. 

Sir, I admit it is a delicate power — an extremely delicate power. I admit that it ought to 
be exercised in a spirit of justice, liberality, and generosity toward this the youngest member 
of the great American family. — But here the power is. Possibly, sir, upon that question — 
however I offer no positive opinion — possibly, if the United States were to fix it in a way un- 
just in the opinion of Texas, and contrary to her rights, she might bring the question befora 
the Supreme Court of the United States, and have it there again investigated and derided. I 
say possibly, sir, because I am not one of that class of politicians who believe that every ques- 
tion is a competent and proper question for the Supreme Court of the United States- There 
are questions too large for any tribunal of that kind to try ; great political questions, national 
territorial questions, which transcend their limits ; for such questions their powers are utterly 
incompetent. Whether this be one of those questions or not, I shall not decide ; but I will 
maintain that the United States are now invested solely and exclusively with that power 
which was common to both nations — to fix, ascertain, and settle the western and northern 
limits of Texas. 

Sir, the other day my honorable friend who represents so woll the State of Texas said, that 
we had no more right to touch the limits of Texas than we had to touch the limits of Ken- 
tucky. I think that was the illustration he gave us — that a state is one and indivisible, 
and that the General Government has no right to sever it. I agree with him, sir, in that ; 
where the limits are ascertained and certain, where they are undisputed and indisputable. Ths 
General Government has no right, nor has any other earthly power the right, to interfere- ' 
with the limits of a State whose boundaries are thus fixed, thus ascertained, known, and re- 
cognised. — The whole power, at least, to interfere with it is voluntary. The extreme case 



14 

may be put — one which I trust in God may never happen in this nation— of a conquered na- 
tion, and of a constitution adapting itself to the state of subjugation or conquest to which it 
has been reduced ; and giving up whole states, as well as parts of states, in order to save from 
the conquering arms of the invader what remains. 1 say such a power in case of extremity 
may exist. But I admit that, short of such extremity, voluntarily, the General Government 
has no right to separate a state — to take a portion of its territory from it, or to regard it other- 
wise than as integral, one and indivisible, and not to be affected by any legislation of ours. 
But, then I assume what does not exist in the case of Texas, and these boundaries must be 
known, ascertained, and indisputable. With regard to Texas, all was open, all was unfixed ; 
all is unfixed at this moment, with respect to her limits west and north of the Nueces. . 

But, sir, we gave fifteen millions of dollars for this territory that we bought, and God 
knows what a costly bargain to this now distracted country it has been ! We gave fifteen 
millions of dollars for the territory ceded to us by Mexico. Can Texas justly, fairly, and ho- 
norably come into the Union and claim all that she asserted a right to, without paying any 
portion of the fifteen millions of dollars which constituted the consideration of the grant by the 
ceding nation to the United States ? She proposes no such thing. She talks, indeed, about 
the United States having been her agent, her trustee. Why, sir, the United States was no 
more her agent or her trustee than she was the agent or trustee of the whole people of the 
United States. Texas involved herself in war — (I mean to make this no reproach — none — 
none — upon the past) — Texas brought herself into a state of war, and when she got into that 
war, it was not the war of Texas and Mexico, but it was the war of the whole thirty United 
States and Mexico ; it was a war in which the Government of the United States, which 
created the hostilities, was as much the trustee and agent of the twenty-nine other states 
composing the Union as she was the trustee and agent of Texas. And, sir, with respect to 
all these circumstances — such, for example, as a treaty with a map annexed, as in the case 
of the recent treaty with Mexico ; such as the opinion of individuals highly respected and 
eminent, like the lamented Mr. Polk, late President of the United States, whose opinion was, 
that he had no right, as President of the United States, or in any character otherwise than 
as negotiating with Mexico — and in that the Senate would have to act in concurrence with 
him — that he had no riyht to fix the boundary ; and as to the map attached to the treaty, it 
is sufficient to say that the treaty itself is silent from beginning to end on the subject of the 
fixation of the boundary of Texas. The annexation of the map to the treaty was a matter 
of no utility, for the treaty is not strengthened by it ; it no more affirms the truth of any thing 
delineated upon that map in relation to Texas than it does any thing in relation to any other 
geographical subject that composed the map. 

Mr. President, I have said that I think the power has been concentrated in the Govern- 
ment of the United States to fix upon the limits of the State of Texas. I. have said also that 
this power ought to be exercised in a spirit of great liberality and justice ; and I put it to you, 
sir, to say, in reference to this second resolution of mine, whether that liberality and justice 
have not been displayed in the resolution which I have proposed. In the resolution, what 
is proposed ? To confine her to the Nueces? No, sir. To extend her boundary to the 
mouth of the Rio Grande, and thence up that river to the southern limit of .New Mexico ; 
and thence along that limit to the boundary between the United States and Spain, as marked 
nnder the treaty of 1819. 

Why, sir, here is a vast country. I believe — although I have made no estimate about it — 
that it is not inferior in extent of land, of acres, of square miles, to what^Texas east of the 
river Nueces, extending to the Sabine, had before. And who is there can say with truth and 
justice that there is no reciprocity, nor mutuality, no concession in this resolution, made to 
Texas, even in reference to the question of boundary alone? You give her a vast country, 
equal, I repeat, in extent nearly to what she indisputably possessed before; a country suffi- 
ciently large, with her consent, hereafter to earve out of it some two or three additional states 
when the condition of the population may render it expedient to make new states. Sir, 
is there not in this resolution concession, liberality, justice? But this is not all that we pro- 
pose to do. The second resolution proposed to pay off a certain amount of the debt of Texas. 
A blank is left in the resolutiou, because I have not heretofore been able to ascertain the 
amount. 

Mr. Foote. Will the honorable Senator allow me to suggest that it maybe agreeable to 
him to finish his remarks to-morrow? If such be the case, I will move that the Senate now 
go into Executive session. 

Mr. Clay. I am obliged to the worthy Senator from Mississippi; I do not think it possible 
for me to conclude to day,*and I will yield with great pleasure if 

Mr. Foote. I now move 



15 

Mr. Clay. If the Senator will permit me to conclude what I have to say in relation to 
Texas, I will then cheerfully yield the floor for his motion. 

I was about to remark that, independently of this most liberal and generous boundary 
which is tendered to Texas, we propose to offer- her in this second resolution a sum which the 
worthy Senator from Texas thinks will not be less than three millions of dollars — the exact 
amount neither he nor I can furnish, not having the materials at hand upon which to make a 
statement. Well, sir, you get this large boundary and three millions of your debt paid. I shall 
not repeat the argument which I urged upon a former occasion, as to the obligation of the 
United States to pay a portion of this debt, but was struck the other day, upon reading the 
treaty of limits, first between the United States and Mexico, and next the treaty of limits be- 
tween the United States and Texas, te find, in the preamble of both thoso treaties, a direct recog- 
nition of the principle from which I think springs our obligation to pay a portion of this debt, for 
the payment of which the revenue of Texas was pledged before her annexation. The principle 
asserted in, the treaty of limits with Mexico is, that whereas by the treaty of 1819, between Spain 
and the United States, a limit was fixed between 31exieo and the United States, Mexico com- 
prising then a portion of the possessions of the Spanish Government, although Mexico was at 
the date of the treaty severed from the crown of Spain, yet she, as having been apart of the 
possessions of the crown of Spain when the treaty of 1819 was made, was bound by that treaty 
as much as if it had been made by herself instead of Spain — in other words, that the sever- 
ance of no part of a common empire can exonerate either portion of that empire from the obli- 
gations contracted when the empire was entire and unsevered. And, Sir, the same principle 
is asserted in the treaty of 1838, between Texas, and the United States. The principle assert- 
ed is, that the treaty of 1828 between Mexico and the United States having been made when 
Texas was a part of Mexico, and that now Texas being dissevered from Mexico, she never- 
theless remains bound by that treaty as much as if no such severance had taken place. In 
other words, the principle is this — that when an independent power creates an obligation or 
debt, no subsequent political misfortune, no subsequent severance of the territories of that 
power, can exonerate it from the obligation that was created while an integral and indepen- 
dent power ; in other words, to bring it down and apply it to this specific case — that, Texas 
being an independent power, and having a right to make loans and to make pledges, having 
raised a loan and pledged specifically the revenues arising from the customs to the public cre- 
ditor, the public creditor became invested with a right to that fund ; and it is a rio-ht of which 
he could not be divested by any other act than one to which his own consent was given — it 
could be divested by no political change which Texas might think proper to make In conse- 
quence of the absorption or merging of Texas into the United States, the creditor, being no 
party to the treaty which was formed, does not lose his right — he retains his right to demand 
the fulfilment of the pledge that was made upon this specific fund, just as if there had not 
been any annexation of Texas to the United States. ,;-< 

That was the foundation upon which I anivedat the conclusion expressed in the resolution 
— that the United States having appropriated to themselves ihe revenue arising from the im- 
ports, which revenue had been pledged to the creditor of Texas, the United States as an ho- 
norable and just power ought now to pay the debt for which those duties were solemnly pledg- 
ed by a power independent in itself, and competent to make the pledge. Well, sir, I think 
that when you consider the large boundary which is assigned to Texas — and when you take 
into view the abhorrence, fori think 1 am warranted in using this expression — with which tho 
people of New Mexico East of the Rio Grande will look upon any political connexion with 
Texas — and when, in addition to this, you take into view the large grant of money that we pro- 
pose to make, and our liberality in exonerating her from a portion of her public debt, equal to 
that grant — when we take all these circumstances into consideration, I think I have presented 
a case in regard to which 1 confess 1 shall be greatly surprised if the people of Texas 
themselves, whether they come to deliberate upon these liberal offers, hesitate a moment to 
accede to them. 

I have now got through with what I had to say in reference to this resolution, and if the 
Senator from Mississippi wishes it, I will give way for a motion for adjournment. 

On motion of Mr. Foqte the farther consideration of tho resolution was postponed, and on 
motion, 

The Senate adjourned. 

Wednesday, beh. 6. 

Mr. Clat. Mr. President, if there be in this vast assembly of beauty, grace, elegance and 
intelligence any who have come here under an expectation that the humble individual who 
now addresses you means to attempt any display, any use of ambitious language, any extra- 
ordinary ornament or decoration of speech, they will be utterly disappointed. The season of 



16 

the year, and my own season of life, both admonish me to abstain from the use of any such 
ornaments ; but, above all, Mr. President, the awful subject upon which it is my duty to ad- 
dress the Senate and the country forbids my saying anything but what pertains strictly to 
that subject, and my sole desire is to make myself, in seriousness, soberness and plainness, 
understood by you and by those who think proper to listen to me. 

When, yesterday, the adjournment of the Senate, took place, at that stage of the discus- 
sion of the resolutions which 1 had submitted which related to Texas and her boundary, I 
thought I had concluded the whole subject, bui I was reminded by a friend that perhaps I 
was not sufficiently explicit on a single point, and that is, the relation of Texas and the 
Government of the United States, and that portion of the debt of Texas for which I think a 
responsibility exists on the part of the Government of the United States. 

Sir, it was said that perhaps it might be understood, in regard to the proposed grant of 
three millions, or whatever may be the sum when ascertained, to Texas, in consideration of 
the surrender of her title to New Mexico this side of the Rio Grande, that we granted no- 
thing — that we merely discharged an obligation which existed upon the Government of the 
United Slates, in consequence of the appropriation of the imports receivable in the ports of 
Texas while she was an independent power. But that is not my understanding, Mr. Presi- 
dent. As between Texas and the United States, the obligation on the part of Texas to pay 
her portion of the debt referred to, is complete and unqualified, and there is, as between these 
two parties, no obligation on the part of the United States to pay one dollar of the debt of 
Texas. On the contrary, by an express stipulation in the resolutions of admission, it is de- 
clared and provided that in no event do the United States become liable or charged with any 
portion of the debt or liabilities of Texas. 

It is not, therefore, for any responsibility which exists to the state of Texas, on the part of 
the Government of tho United States, that I think provision ought to be made for that debt. 
No such thing. As -between those two parties, the responsibility on the part of Texas is 
complete to pay the debt, and there is no responsibility on the part of the United States to pay 
one cent. But there is a third party, who was no party to the annexation whatever — that 
is to say, the creditor of Texas, who advanced the money on the faith of solemn ('ledges 
made by Texas to him, to reimburse the loan by the appropriation of tho duties received on 
foreign imports ; and he, and he alone, is the party to whom we are bound, according to tho 
view which I have presented of the subject. Nor can the other creditors of Texas complain 
that provision is made only for a particular portion of tho debt, leaving the residue of the debt 
unprovided for, by the Govertment cf the United States, because, in so far as we may ex- 
tinguish any portion of the debt of Texas under which she is now bound, in so far will it con- 
tribute to diminish the residue of the debts of Texas, and leave the funds derived from the 
public lands held by Texas, and what other resources she may have, applicable to the pay- 
ment of these debts, with more effect than if the entire debt, including the pledged portion as 
well as the unpledged portion, was obligatory upon her, and she stood bound by it. Nor can 
the creditors complain, for another reason. 

Texas has all the resources which she had when an independent power, with the excep- 
tion of the duties receivable in her ports upon foreign imports, and she is exempted from cer- 
tain charges, expenditures and responsibilities which she would have had to encounter if she 
had remained a separate and independent power : for example, she would have had to pro- 
vide for a certain amount of naval force and for a certain amount perhaps of military force, 
in order to protect herself against Mexico or against any foreign enemy whatever. But by 
her annexation to the United States she became liberated from all these charges, and, of 
course, her entire revenues may be applicable to the payment of her debts, those only excepted 
which are necessary to the support and maintenance of the Government of Texas. 

With this explanation upon that part of the subject, I pass to the consideraton of the next 
resolution in the series which I have had the honor to submit, and which relates, if I am not 
mistaken, to this District. 

" Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, while that 
institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that state, 
without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners 
of slaves within the District." 

Mr. Piesideut, an objection at the moment was made to this resolution, by some honorable 
Senator on the other side of the body, that it did not contain an assertion of the unconstitu- 
tionality of the exercise of the power of abolition. I said then, as I have uniformly maintained 
in this body, as I contended for in 1838, and ever have done, that the power to abolish slavery 
within the District of Columbia has been vested in Congress by language too clear and expli- 
cit to admit, in my judgment, of any rational doubt whatever. What, sir, is the language of 



17 

the Constitution ? " To exercise exclusive legislation, in all case? whatsoever, over such dis- 
trict (not exceeding ten miles t-quare) as may, by cession of particular States and the accept- 
ance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States." Now, sir, 
Congress, by tics grant of power, is invested with al! legislation whatsoever over the District. 
Not only is it so invested, but it is exclusively invested with all legislation whatsoever over the 
District. 

Can we conceive of human language more bro>d and comprehensive than that which in- 
vests a legislative b >dy with exclusive power, in all cases whatsoever, of legislation over a 
given district of territory or country ? Let me ask, sir, is there any power to abolish slavery in 
this District? Let me suppose, in addition to what I suggested the other day, that slavery had 
been abolished in Maryland and Virginia — let me add to it the supposition that it was abo- 
lished in all the States in the Union ; is there auy power then to abolish slavery within the 
District of Columbia, or is slavery planted here to all eternity, without the possibility of the 
exercise of any legislative power for its abolition? It cannot be invested in Maryland, be- 
cause the power with which Congress is invested is exclusive. Maryland, therefore, is exr 
eluded, and so all the other States of the Union are excluded. It is here, or it is nowhere. 

This was the view which I look in 1838, and I think there is nothing in the resolution 
which I nflered on that occasion incompatible with the view which I now present, and which 
the resolution contains. While 1 admitted the power to exist in Congress, and exclusively in 
Congress, to legislate in all cases whatsoever, and consequently in the case of the abolition of 
slavery in this District, if it is deemed proper to do so, I admitted on that occasion, as I con- 
tend now, that it is a power which Congress cannot, iu conscience and good faith, exercise- 
while the institution of slavery continues wi hiu the>9tate of Maryland. The case, sir, is a 
good deal altered now from what it was twelve years ago, when the resolution to which I 
allude was adopted by the Senate. 

Upon that occasion Virginia and Maryland both were concerned in the exercise of the 
power ; but, by the retrocession of that portion of the District which lies south of the Potomae, 
Virginia became no more interested in the question of the abolition of slavery within the resi- 
due of the Distiict than any other slaveholding State iu the Union is interested in its abolition. 
The question now is confined to Maryland. I said on that occasion that, although the grant 
of power is complete, and comprehends the right to abolish slavery w 7 ithin the District, yet it 
was a thing which never could have entered into the conception of Maryland or Virginia that 
slavery would be abolished here while slavery continued to exist in either of those two ceding 
States. I say, moreover, what the grant of power itself indicates, that, although exclusive, 
legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District was vested in Congress within the ten 
miles square, it was to make it the seat of Government of the United Sta'os. That was the 
great, prominent, substantial object of the grant, and that, iu exercising all the powers with 
which we are invested, complete and full as they may be, yet the great purpose — that of the 
cessiou having been made iu order to create a suitabie seat of Government — ought to be the 
leading and coutrolling idea with Congress in the exercise of this power. 

And it is not necess sry, in order to render it a proper and suitable seat of Government for 
the United States, that slavery should be abolished within the limits of the ten miles square. 
And inasmuch as at the time of the cession — when, in a spirit of generosity, immediately after 
the formation of this constitution — when all was peace, aud harmony, and concord — when 
brotherly affection and fraternal feeling prevailed throughout this whole Union — when Mary- 
land and Virginia, in a moment of generous impulse, and with feelings of high regard toward 
the members of this Union, chose to make this grant, neither party could have suspected that, 
at some distant future period, upon the agitation of this unfortunate subject, their generou-« 
grant without equivalent was to be turned against them, and that the sword was to be uplifted 
as it were, iu their Itosoms, to strike at their own hearts ; thus this implied faith, this honor- 
able obligation, this necessity and propriety of keeping in constant view the great object of 
cession. Those were considerations which in 1833 governed me, as they now influence me, 
in submitting the reasons which I have submitted to your consideration. 

Now, as then, I do not think Congress ought ever, as an honorable body, acting bona, 
fide in good faith, and according to the nature and purposes and objects of the cession at the 
time it was made — and, looking at the condition of the ceding States at that time, Congress 
canuot, without the forfeiture of all those obligations of honor which men of honor an i nations 
of honor respect as much as if found literally in so many words in the bond itself — Congress 
cannot interfere with the institution of slavery iu this District without the violation of all 
these obligations, not in my opinion less sacred and less binding than if inserted in the con- 
stitutional instrument itself. 

Well, sir, what does the resolution propose? The resolution neither affirms nor disaffirms 
the constitutionality of the exercise of the power of abolition in this District. It is silent 
npon the subject. It says it was inexpedient to do it but upon certain conditions. And what 



18 

are these considerations? Why, first, that the State of Mary'and shall give its consent ; in 
other words, that the State of Maryland ? hull release the United States from the obligation of 
the implied faith which I contend is connected with the act of cession by Mar, land to the 
United States. Well, sir, if Maryland, the only State now rhat Ct ded any portion of the 
territory which remains to us, gives us her full consent; in other words, if she releases Con- 
gress from all obligations growing out of the cession, with regard to slavery, I consider it is 
removing one of the obstacles to the exercise of the power, if it were deemed expedient to 
exercise the power. But it is removing only one of ihem. There are two other conditions 
which are inserted in this resolution. The firs.' 3 the consent of the people of the District. 

Mr. President, the condition of the people of tnis District is anomalous. It is a condition 
iu violation of the great principles which lie at the bottom of our own free institutions, and all 
free institutions, because it is the case of a people who are acted upon by legislative authority, 
and tii.xed by legislative authority, without having any voice or representation in the taxing 
or legislative body. The Government of the United States, in respect to the people of this 
District, is a tyranny, an absolute Government — uot exercised hitherto, I admit, and I hope 
it never will be exercised, tyrannically or arbitrarily ; but it is in the nature of all arbitrary 
power, because, if I were to give a definition of arbitrary power, I would say that it is that 
pow<*r which is exercised by au authority over our people who have no voice, no representa- 
tion in the assembly whose edicts or laws go forth to act upon the unrepresented people to 
whom I have referred. 

Well, sir, that being their condition, and this question of the abolition of slavery affecting 
them in all the relations which we can imagine-— of prosperity, society, comfort, peace, and 
happiness — I have required as another condition, upon which alone this power should be 
exercised, the consent of the people of the District,. But, sir, I have not stopped there. This 
resolution requires stilJ- another and a third condition, and that is, that slavery shall not be 
abolished within the District of Columbia, although Maryland consents, although the people of 
the District themselves consent, without the third condition of making compensation to the 
owners of the slaves within the District. Sir, it is immaterial to me upon what basis this 
obligation to compensate for the slaves who may be liberated by the authority of Congress is 
placed. There is a clause in the constitution of the United States, of the amendments to the 
constitution, which declares that no private property shall be taken for public use, without 
just compensation being made to the owner of the property. 

Well, I think, in a just and liberal interpretation of that clause, we are restrained from 
taking the property of the people of the District, in slaves, on considerations of any public 
policy, or for any conceivable or imaginable use of the public, without a full and fair com- 
pensation to the people of this District. But, without the obligation of any constitutional 
restriction, such as is contained in the amendment to which I refer — without that, upon the 
principles of eternal justice itself, we ought not to deprive those who have property in slaves, 
in this District, of their property, without compensating them for their full value. Why, sir, 
no one of the European poweis, Great Britain, France, or any other of the powers which 
undertook to abolish slavery in their respective colonies, has ever ventured to do it without 
making compensation. They were under no obligation atisir.g out of any written or other 
constitution to do it, but under that obligation to which all men ought to bow with homage — 
that obligation of eternal justice, which declares that no 'man ou-ht to be deprived of his 
property without a full and just compensation for its value. 

I know it has been argued that the clause of the constitution which requires compensation 
for property taken by the public, for its use, would not apply to the case of the abolition of 
slavery in the District, because the property is not taken for the use'of the public. Literally, 
perhaps, it would not be taken for the use of the public; but it would be taken in conside- 
ration of a policy and purpose adopted by the public, as one which it was deemed expedient 
to carry into full effect and operation ; and, by a liberal interpretation of the clause, it ought 
to be so far regarded as taken for the use of the public, at the instance of the public, as to 
demand compensation to the extent of the value of the property. 

If that is not a restriction as to the power of Congress over tho subject of slavery in the 
District, then the power of Congress stands unrestricted, and that would not be a better con- 
dition for the slaveholder in the District than to assume the restriction contained in the 
amendment. I say it would be unrestricted by constitutional operation or injunction. The 
great restrictions resulting from the obligations of justice would remain, and they are suffi- 
cient to exact from Congress the duty of ascertaining, prior to ths abolition of slavery, the 
value of the property in slaves in the District, and of making full, fair and just compensation 
for that property. 

Well, Mr. President, I said yesterday there was not a resolution, except the first, (which 
contained no concession by either party,) that did not either contain some mutual concussion 



19 

by the two parties, or did not contain concessions altogether from the North to the South. 

Now with respect to the resolution under consideration. The North has contended that 
the power exists under the constitution to abolish slavery. The South, I am aware, has 
opposed it, and most, at least a great portion of the Smith, have contended for tlie opposite 
construction. What does the resolution do? It asks of both parties to forbear urging their 
respective opinions, the' one to the exclusion of the other, but it concedes to the South al 
that the South, it appears to me, upo i this subject, ought in reason to demand, in so far as 
it requires such conditions as amount to an absolute security for property in slaves in the 
District ; such conditions as will probably make the existence of slavery within the District 
coeval and coextensive with its existence in any of the States out of and beyond the District. 
But, sir, the second clause of this resolution provides " that it is expedient to prohibit within 
the D.striet the trade in slaves bought into it from States or places beyond the limits of tho 
District, either to be sold therein as merchandise or to be transported to other markets." 

Well, Mr. President, if the concession be made that Congress has the power of legislation, 
and exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, how can it be doubted that Congress has 
authority to prohibit what is called the slave trade in the District of Columbii? Sir, my 
interpretation of the constitution is this; that, with regard to all parts of it which operate 
upon the States, Congress can exercise no power which is not granted, or which is not a 
necessary implication from a granted power. That is the rule for the action of Congress in 
relation to its legislation upon the States, but in relation to its legislation upon this District, 
tho reverse. I take it to be the true rule that Congress has all power over the District which 
is not prohibited by some part of the Constitution of the United States; in other words, that 
Congress has a power within the District equivalent to and co-extensive with, the power 
which any State itself possesses with n its own limits. Well, sir, does any one doubt tho 
power and the right of any slaveholding State in this Union to forbid the introduction, as 
merchandise, of slaves within their limits? Why, sir, almost every slaveholding State in 
the Union has exercised its power to prohibit the introduction of slavery as merchandise. 

It was in the constitution of my own State ; and, notwithstanding all the exc temeut and 
agitation upon the subject of slavery which occurred during the past year in the State of 
Kentucky, the same principle is incorporated in tho new constitution. It is in the constitu- 
tion, I know, of Mississippi. That State prohib ts the introduction of slaves within its limits 
as merchandise. I believe it to be in tho constitution or in the laws of Maryland — in the 
laws of Virginia — in the laws of most of the slaveholding States. It is true that the p -licy 
of the different slaveholding States upon this subject has somewhat vacillated — they some- 
times adopted it and sometimes excluded it — but there has been no diversity of opinion, no 
departure from the great principle, that every one of them has the power and authority to 
prohibit the introduction of slaves within their respective limits, if they choose to exercise it. 
Well, then, sir, I really do not think that this resolution, which proposes to abolish that 
trade, ought to be considered as a concession by either class of the States to the other class. 

I think it should be regarded as a common object, acceptable to both, and conformable to 
the wishes and feelings of both ; and yet, sir, in these times of fearful and alarming excite- 
ment — in these times when every night that I go to sleep and awake up in the morning, it 
is with the apprehension of some new and fearful and dreadful tidings upon this' agitating 
subject — I have seen in the act of a neighboring State, among the various contingencies 
wheih are enumerated, upon the happening of any one of which delegates are to be sent to 
the famous convention which is to Assemble at Nashville in June next, that among other 
substantive grounds for the appointment of delegates to that convention — of delegates from 
the State to which I refer — one is, that if Congress abolish the slave trade in the District of 
Columbii, that shall be cause for a convention — in other words, it is cause for considering 
whether this Union ought to be dissolved or not. Is it possible to portray a greater extent 
of extravagance to which men may be carried by the indulgence of their passions? 

Sir, the power exists; the duty, in my opinion, exists; and there has been no time — as 1 
may say, in language coincident with that used by the honorable Senator from Alabama — 
there has been no time in my public life when I was not willing to concur in the abolition 
of the slave trade in this. District. I was willing to do it when Virginia's portion of the Dis- 
trict was retroceded, that lying South of the Potomac. There is still less ground for objection 
to doing it now, when the District is limited to the portion this side of the Potomac, and 
when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves here in a depot, for the purpose of trans- 
portation to distant foreign markets, is lessened with the diminution of the District, by tha 
retrocession of that portion to Virginia. 

Why should slave-traders who buy their slaves in Maryland or Virginia, come here wi'h 
their slaves in order to transport them to New Orleans or other Southern markets? Way 
not transpoit them from the States in which they are purchased? Why are the feelings of 
citizens here outraged by the scenes exhibited, and the corteges which pass along our ave- 



20 

nues, of manacled human beings, not collected at all in oar own neighborhood, but broug?j5 
from distant parts of neighboring States? Why should they be outraged? And who ia 
there, that Iims a heart, that does not contemplate a spectacle of that kind with horror and 
indignation? Why should they be outraged by a scene so inexcusable and detestable as 
this? 

Sir, it is no concession, I repeat, from one class of States or from the other. It is an ob- 
ject in which both of them, it seems to me, should heartily unite, and which the one side as 
much as the other should rejoice in adopting, inasmuch as it lessens one of the causes of in- 
quietude and dissatisfactio.i which are. connected with this District. Abolish the slave-trade 
in this district ; re-assert the doctrine of the resolution of 1838, that by an implied assent 
on the part of Congress slavery ought not to be abolished in the District of Columbia, while 
it remains in the State of Maryland ; re-assert the principle of that resolution, and adopt tho 
ether healing measures — or other similar or more healing measures — for I am not attached 
to any thing that is the production of my own hand, if any thing better should be offered by 
any body else — adopt the other healing measures which are proposed, and which are required 
by the distracted condition of the country, and I venture to say that, as we have had peace 
and quiet for the last twenty years, since the termination of the Missouri controversy, we 
shall have, in all human probability, peace for a longer period to come upon this unhappy 
subject of slavery. 

The next resolution is : 

" That more effectual provision onght to be made by law, according to the requirement of 
the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any 
State, who may escape into any other State or Territory in the Union." 

Now, Mr. President, upon that subject I go with him who goes farthest in the interpreta- 
tion of that clause in the Constitution. In my humble opinion, sir, it is a requirement by the 
Constitution of the United States which is not limited iu its operation to the Congress of the 
Uuited States, but extends to every State iu the Union and to the officers of every State in 
the Union ; and I go one stop farther.; it extends to every man in the Union, and devolves 
upon tin m a!! an obligation to assist in the recovery of a fugitive from labor who takes refuge 
in or escapes into one of the free States. And, sir, I think I can maintain all this by a fair 
interpretation of the Constitution. It provides — 

" That no person held to service or labor in oue State, under the laws thereof, escaping 
into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from ser- 
vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor 
may be due." 

It will be observed, Mr. President, that this clause iu the Constitution is not among the 
enumerated powers granted to Congress, for, if that had_been the case, it might have been 
urged that Congress alone could legislate to carry it into effect ; but it is one of the general 
powers, or one of the general rights secured by this Consiitutional instrument, and it addresses 
itself to all who are bound by the Constitutiou of the United States. Now, sir, the officers of the 
General Government are bound to take au oath to support the Constitution of the United States. 
All State officers are required by the Consiitution to take an oath to support the Constitution of 
the United States ; and all men who love their country and are obedient to its laws, are bound 
to assist in the execution of those Jaws, whether they are fundamental or derivative. I do not 
say that a private individual is bound to make the tour of his State in order to assist an owner 
of a slave to recover his property ; but I do say, if he is present when the owner of a slave is 
about to assert his rights and endeavor to obtain possession of his property, evtry man pre- 
sent, whether he be an officer of the General Government or the State Government, or a 
private individual, is bound to assist, if men are bound at all to assist in the exocution of tho 
laws of their country. 

Now what is this provision? It is that such fugitives shall be delivered upon claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due. As has been already remarked in the 
course of the debate upon the bill upon this subject which is now pending, the Iafiguage 
used in regard to fugitives from criminal offences and fugitives from labor is precisely the 
same. The fugitive from justice is to be delivered up, and to be removed to tho State having 
jurisdiction ; the fugitive from labor is to be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such 
service is due. Well, has it ever been contended on the part of any State that she is not 
bound to surrender a fugitive from justice, upon demand from the State from which he fled ? 
I believe not. There have been some exceptions to the performance of this duty, but they 
have not denied the general right ; and if they have refused in any instance to give up the 
person demanded, it has been upon some technical or legal ground, not at all questioning the 
general right to have the fugitive surrendered, or the obligation to deliver him up as intended 
by the Constitution. 






21 

1 think, then, Mr. President, that with regard to the true interpretation of this provision of 
flie Constitution there can be no doubt. It imposes an obligation upon all the States, 
free or siaveholding ; it imposes an obligation upon all officers of the Government, 
State, or Federal ; and, I will add, upon all the people of the United States, under 
particular circumstances, to assist in the surrender and recovery of a fugitive slave from 
his m ister. 

There has been some confusion, and, I think, some misconception, on this subject, in con- 
sequence of a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that de- 
cision has been entirely misapprehended. There is a vast difference between imposing impedi- 
ments and affording facilities for the recovery of fugitive slaves. The Supreme Court of the 
United States has only decided that all laws of impediment are unconstitutional. I know 
there aie some general expressions in the opinion to which I have referred — the case, of Ma- 
ryland against Pennsylvania — that seem to import otherwise ; but I think, Whet! you come 
attentively to read the \vh do opinion, and the opinion pronounced by all the judges, espe- 
cially if you take the trouble of doing what I have done, to converse with them as o what 
their real meaning was, you will find that the whole extent of the. authority which they in- 
intended to e>tablish was that any laws of impediment enacted by the States were 
iaws that were forbidden by the provision of tho Constitution to which I refer ; that 
the General Government had no right, by an act of the Congress of the United 
States, to impose obligations upon Slate officers not imposed by the authority of their 
own Constitution and laws. It is impossible the decision could have been otherwise. It 
Would have been perfectly extrajudicial. The Court had no right to decide the question 
whether the laws of facility were or were not unconstitutional. 

The only question before the Court was the law of impediment passed by the 'Legislature 
of Pennsylvania] and if they had gone beyond the case before them, and undertaken to de- 
cide upon a ease not hefore them, a principle which was not. fairly comprehended within the 
case before them, it would be what the lawyers term an obiler dictum, and is nut binding; 
either on that Court itself or any other tribunal. I say it was not possible that, with the 
case before ihe Court of a law for giving facility to the holder of the slave to recover his 
property again, it was utterly impossible that auy tribunal should pronounce a decision that 
such aid and assistance, rendered by the authority of the State, Under this previ ion of the 
Constitution of the Uuiled St ties, is unconstitutional and void. The Court has not. -said se, 
or if they have said so, they have transcended their authority and gone beyond the case 
which was before them. Laws passed by States, in order to assist the General Government, 
so far from beitifj laws repugnant to the Constitution, would every where be regarded as laws 
carrying out, enforcing, and fulfilling the Constitutional duties which are created by that in- 
strument. 

Why, sir, as well might it be contended that if Congress were to declare war — and no ona 
will doubt that the power to declare war is vested exclusively in Congress ; no State has the 
right to do it — no one will contend seriously, I apprehend, that after the declaration of war 
it would be unconstitutional on the part of any of the States to assist in the vigorous and 
effective prosecution of that war ; and yet it would be just as unconstitutional to lend flieir aid 
to the successful and glorious termination of the war in which we might be embarked, as it 
would be to assist in the performance of a high duty which addresses itself to all the States and 
all the people of ail the States. 

Mr. P. evident, I do think that that whole class of Legislation, beginning in the Northern 
States and extending to some of tho Western States, hy which obstructions and impedimenta 
have been thrown in the way of the recovery of fugitive slaves, is unconstitutional, and has 
originated in a spirit which I trust will correct itself when th.se States come calmly to consi- 
der the nature and extent of their federal obligations. Of all the States in this 'Union, unless 
it lie Virginia, the State of which I am a resident suffers most by the escape of their slave* tu 
(adjoining S ates. 

I have very little doubt, indeed, that the exte.it of loss to the State of Kentucky, in conse- 
quence of the escipe of her slaves is greater, at least, in proportion to the total number of 
slaves which are held within that commonwealth, even than in Virginia. I know 
full well, and so does the honorable Senator from Ohio know, that it is at the ut- 
most hazard, and insecurity to life itself, that a Kentuckiah can cross the river and 
go into the interior to take back iiis fugitive slave to the place from whence he tied. Recent- 
ly an example occurred even in the city of Cincinnati, in respect to one of our most respect- 
able citizens. Not having visited Ohio at all, but Covington, on the opposite side -of the river, 
a little slave of his escaped over to Cincinnati. He pursued it ; he found it in the house in 
which it was concealed ; he took it out, and it was rescued by the violence and force of a 
negro mob from his possession — the police of tho city standing by, and either unwilling or 
unable to afford the assistance which was requisite to enable him to recoVer his property. 
Upon this subject I do think that we have ju=t and serious cause of complaint against tho 



22 

free States. I think they fail in fulfilling a great obligation, and the failure is precisely upom 
one of these subjects which in its nature is the most irritating a.,d inflaming to those who live 
in the slave States. 

Now, sir, 1 think it is a mark of no good neighborhood, of no kindness, of no courtesy, 
that a man living in a slave State cannot now, with any sort of safety, navel in he free 
States with his servants, although he has no purpose whatever of stopping there longer than 
a short time. And on this whole subject, sir, how has the legislation of the free States al- 
tered for the worse within the course of the last twenty or thirty years? Why, sir, most of 
th< se Stales, until within a period of the last tweuty or thirty years, had laws for the benefit 
of sojourners, as they were called, passing through or ab'diog for the moment in the free 
States, with their servants. Sir, I recollect a case that occurred during the war. My fiie d, 
Mr. Cheeves, of South Carolina, instead of going home in the vacation, went to Philadel- 
phia, taking his family servants with him. Some of the abolitioni ts of that city took out a 
habeas corpus, seized ihe slaves, and the question was brought before the Supreme Court of 
the State of Pennsylvania, where it was argued for days. 

It was necessary, during the progress of the arguments, to refer to a great vaiicty of 
statutes- passed from time to time by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the 
sojourner, guarantying and securing to him the possession of his property during his tempo- 
rary passage or abode within the limits of that commonwealth. Finally, the court gave 
their opinion seriatim — each judge his separate opinion, until it came to Judge Bred enridge 
to deliver his, who was the youngest judge, I think, on the bench. During the progress of 
the delivery of their opinions they had frequently occasion to refer to the sets passed for the 
benefit of sojourners ; arid each of the judges who preceded Mr. Breckenridge always pro- 
nounced the word " sudgeners." When i> came to Judge Breckenridge to deliver his opinion, 
he said, " I agree in all that my learned brethren have pronounced upon this occasion, ex- 
cept in their pronunciation of the word ' sojourner.' They pronounced it ' sudgener ;' but I 
call it ' sojourner.' " [Laughte:.] Well, now, sir, all these laws in behalf of these 
sojourners through the free States are swept away, except I believe in the State of Rhode 
Island. 

Mr. Dayton. And New Jersey 

Mr. Clay. Aye, and in New Jersey. I am happy to hear it ; but in most of the large 
States, in most, if not all, of the New England States, these laws have been abolished, show- 
the progressive tendency of bad neighborhood and unkind action on the part of the free 
States toward the slaveholding States. 

Mr. President, I do not mean to contest the ground — I am not going to argue the question, 
whether, if a man carries his slave voluntarily into the free States and he is not a fugitive, 
whether that slave, by the voluntary action of the master, does or does not become instantly 
entitled to his freedom. I am not going to argue that question. I know what the decision 
has been at the North, but I mean to say it is unkind, it is unneighborly, it is not in the 
spirit of fraternal connexion which exists between the members of this confederacy, to exe- 
cute a strict legal principle in the way suggested, even supposing it to be right so to do. But 
where there is no puipose of permanent abode, no intention of settling finally and conclusively, 
and plautii g his slaves within the commonwealth, it is but right, and a proof of good neigh- 
borhood and kind and friendly feeling, to allow the owner of the slave to pas3 with his pro- 
perty unmolested through your State. 

Allow me to say upon the subject, though it is perhaps going farther into detail than is 
necessary, that of all the exercise of power of those wl.o atlempt to seduce fiom their owners 
their slaves, there is no instance in which it is exercised so injuriously to the objects of their 
charity and benevolence as in the case of the seduction of family slaves from the service of 
their owner. The slaves in a family are treated with all the kindness that the children of 
the family receive. Everything which they want for their comfort is given them with the 
most liberal indulgence ; and, sir, I have known more instances than one where, by this 
practice of the seduction of family servants from their owners, they have been rendered 
wretched and unhappy in the free States; and in my own family, a slave who had been 
seduced away, addressed her mistress and begged and implored of her the means of getting 
back from the state, of freedom to which she had been seduced, to the state of slavery in 
which she was so much more happy ; and in the case to which 1 have referred the means 
were afforded her, and she returned to the State of Kentucky to her mistress. 

Then, Mr. President, I think that the existing laws upon the subject, lor the recovery of 
fugitive slaves, and the restoration and delivering of them up to their owners, being found 
inadequate and ineffective, it is incumbent on Congress — and 1 hope hereafter, in a better 
state of feeling, when moro harmony and good -will prevail amoi g the members of this con- 
federacy, it will be regarded by the. free States themselves as a pail of their duty also — to 
assist in allaying this irritating unc^distui biug subject to the peace of our Union ; but, at all 
events, whether they do it or not, it is our duty to do it. It is our duty to make the law 



23 

more effective, and I shall go with the Senator from the South who goes farthest in making 
penal laws and imposing the heaviest sanctions for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and the 
restoration of them to their owners. 

Mr. President, upon t his part of the subject, however, allow me 10 make an observation 
or two. I do not think the Slates, as Stales, ought to be responsible for all the misconduct 
of particular individuals within those StaUs. I think that the States are only to be held re- 
sponsible when they act in their sovereign capacity. If there are a few persons, indiscreet, 
mad, if you choose — fanatics, if you choose so to call them — who are for dissolving this 
Union, as we know there are some at the North, and for dissolving it in consequence of the 
connexion which exists between the fiee and slaveholding Slaves, I do not think that any 
State in which such madmen as they are to be found, ought to be held responsible for the 
doctrines they propagate, unless the State itself adopts those doctrines. 

Sir, there have het-n, perhaps, mutual causes of complaint ; and I know, at least I have 
heard, that Massachusetts, for some of her unfriendly laws on the subject of the recovery of 
fugitive slaves, urges as the motive for the passag • of those laws the treatment which a cer- 
tain minister of hers experienced in Charleston, some years ago. Mr. Hoar, I think, is the 
name of the individual who was s-nt to South Carolina to take care of the free negroes of 
Massachusetts that might pass to Charleston in the vessels of Massachusetts. I think it 
was a mission that it was hardly worthy of Massachusetts to create. I think she might 
have omitted to send Mr. Hoar upon any s"ch mission ; but she thought it right to send him. 
and he went there for the purpose of asserting, as he said, the rights of those free people of 
color before the courts of justice, and of testing the validity of certain laws in South Caro- 
lina with regard to the prohibition of i'ree negroes from coming into her ports. I believe that 
was the object, that was the purpose of his mission. He went there to create no disturb- 
ance, as I understand, except so far as asserting those rights and privileges, in the sense in 
which Massachusetts held them, might create disturbance He was virtually driven out of 
Charleston, as I believe he or some other emissary of the same kind was driven out of New 
Orleans. I do not mean to say whether it was right or wrong to expel him. What I mean 
to say is, that Massachusetts, or some of her citizens, has said, that, after finding this treat- 
ment towards those whom she chooses to consider citizens, on the part of South Carolina, she 
determined on that course of legislation by which she has withdrawn all aid and assistance 
for the recovery of fugitives, and interposes obstacles ; and then she pleads the treatment of 
Mr. Hoar as an apology. I think that furnished her with no sufficient apology. If South 
Carolina treated her ill, it is no reason why she should ill teat Kentucky and Virginia, and 
other slaveholding States that had done her no wrong. But she thought so. 

I mention both cases — the case of the expulsion of Mr. Hoar from Charleston, and the 
passage of the laws of Massachusetts — not by way of approbation of either, but to show that 
there have been, unhappily, mutual causes of agitation, furnished by one class of S ates as 
well as by the other ; though, I admit, not in the same degree by the slave States as by the 
free States. And I admit, also, that the free States have much less cause for anxiety and 
solicitude on this subject of slavery than the slave states, and that far more extensive ex- 
cuses, if not justification, ought to be extended to the slave than the free States, on account 
of the difference of the condition of the respective parties. 

Mr. President, passing from that resolution, I will add only a single observation, that when 
the bill comes up to be finally acted on, I will vote most cordially and heartily for it. 

Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts. Will the honorable Senator permit me to interrupt him for 
a moment? I want to say one word in behalf of the state of Massachusetts, with his per- 
mission. 

Mr. Cur. Certainly, certainly. 

Mr. Davis. I have never, although most likely he may have, heard the apology stated by 
the honorable Senator for passing the law to which he has referred ; but on the contrary I 
have always understood that the law which Massachusetts had, lor restoring fugitive slaves, 
was repealed because the courts below, as they understood it, had pronounced their law un- 
constitutional. That is the ground which they took ; whether they were wise in the legis- 
lation they adopted I. shall not. undertake to say. But I wish to say one word in regard to 
the mission, as it is termed by the honorable. Senator from Kentucky, to South Carolina. 

If I call the facts to my recollection correctly, they are these. We are the owners of 
much shipping ; we employ many sailors, and among them we employ free colored men, 
men whom we in Massachusetts acknowledge to be citizens of the United States and citi- 
zens of the commonwealth, and entitled o the rights of citizens. These citizens were taken 
from our vessels when they arrived in South Carolina, and were held in custody till the ves- 
sels sailed again. This our citizens complained of, whether justly or unjustly, that it was an 
encroachment, in the first place, upon the rights of citizens, and, in the next place, that it 
was a great inconvenience to men engaged in commerce. If I remember righily, ai,d I 
think I do, the state of Massachusetts authorized its Governor to propose, at the expense of 



24 

the Stale, to some suitable and proper person, who was a citizen of South Carolina, to test the 
right to hold her c tizens in custody in this way, in the conns of the State, or in the courts 
of the United States. If 1 remember rightly, that was declined by one or more citizens of 
South Carolina. Then the mission, to which the honorable Senator refers, was instituted, 
and the termination of it I believe he has correctly stated. 

I wish it to appear that Massachusetts had no aggressive purpose whatever, but simply 
Wished that the judiciary should decide the question existing between them. She wanted 
nothing more, asked nothing more. 

Mr. Clay. Mr. President, I hear with much pleasure this explanation. I have been in- 
formed, however, by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, whose name it is unnecessary to 
mention— he is not a member of this h dy — that the motive fir the repeal of these laws, or 
lor the passage of these laws, at lea tone of the motives, was the treatment of Mr. Hoar in 
Charleston. However, I am glad to hear th it it proceeded from another cause, and that is 
what I conceive to be a misconception of what the Hue opinion of the judges of the Supreme 
Court was. When the true exposition of that opinion comes to be known in Massachusetts, 
I trust that the Legislature of that State will restore the laws facilitating the recovery of 
fugitive slaves, which she repealed in consequence of that misconception. 

Mr. President, I have a great deal yet to say, and I shall, therefore, pass from the con- 
s delation of this seventh resolution with the observation, which ] believe 1 have partly made 
before, that the most stringent provision upon this subject which can be devised will meet 
with my hearty concurrence and co-operation, in the passage of the bill which is under the 
consideration of the Senate. The last resolution declares — 

" That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the 
Blaveholding States ; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into 
another of them depends exclusively upon their own particular laws." 

Ibis is a concesssion, not, 1 admit, of any real constitutional provision, but a concession 
from the North to the South of what is understood, I believe, by a grr-at number at the 
North, to be a constitutional provision. If the resolution should be adopted, take away the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on this subject, and there is a great deal, 
1 know, that might be said on both sides, as to the tight of Congress to regulate the trade 
between the States, and, consequently, the trade in slaves between the States; but I think 
the decision of the Supreme Court has been founded upon correct principles, and 1 trust it 
will forever put an end to the question whether Congress has or has not the power to regu- 
late the intercourse and trade in slaves between the different States. 

Such, Mr. President, is the series of resolutions which in an earnest and anxious desire to 
present the olive branch to both parts of this distracted, and at the present moment unhappy 
country, I have thought it my duty to offer. Of all men upon earth I am the least attached 
to any productions of my own mind. No man upon earth is more ready than I am to sur- 
render any thing which I have proposed, and to accept in lieu of it any thing thai is brtter; 
but I put it to the candor of honorable Senators on the. other side and upon all sides of the 
Hoi se, whether their duty will be perfornu d by simply limi;iug themselves to objections to 
any one or to all of the series of resolutons that I have offered. If my plan of peace, and ac- 
commodation, and harmony, is not right, present us your plan. Let us see the counter project. 
Let. ns see how all the qufBtions that have arisen out of this unhappy subject of slavery can 
be better settled, mire fairly and justly settled to all quarters of the Union, than on the plan 
proposed in the resolutions which I have offered. Present me such a scheme, and I will hail 
it wiih pleasure, and will accept it without the slightest feeling of regret th t my own was 
abandoned. Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration upon this subject, the idea 
of the Missouri compromise, as it has been termed, came under my review, was considered 
by me, and finally rejected as in my judgment less worthy of the common acceptance of 
both parts of this Union than the project which I have off-red for your consideration. 

Before I enter into a particular examination, however, of that Missouri compromise, I beg 
to be allowed to correct a great error which is prevailing, not merely in this Senate but 
throughout, the whole country, in respect to my agency in the Missouri compromise, or 
rather in respect to the line of 36 deg. 30 iriin., which was established in 182!) by an act of 
Congress. I do not know whether any thing has excited more surprise in my mind, as to 
the rapidity with which important historical transactions are obliterated and pass from the 
mind, than when I understood everywhere that 1 had been the author of the line of 30 deg. 
30 min., which was established upon the occasion of the admission of Missouri into the 
Union. It would take too much time to go over the whole of that important er.i in the 
public affairs of the country. I shall not do it, although I have got ample materials before 
me, derived from a careful examination of the jourhals of both houses. I will not occupy 
your time by going in detail through the whole transaction, but I will content m '.self with 
saying that so far from my having presented as a proposition this line of 36 deg. 30 mill., 
upon the occasion of the consideration whether Missouii should be admitted into the Union 



25 

or not, it did not originate in the house of which I was a member. 

It originated in this body, as those who will cast their recollection back, and I am suro 
the honorable Senator from Missouri, (.Mr. Benton,) more correctly than any body else, 
must bring to his recollection the fact that at the Congress when the proposition was first 
made to admit Missouri — or rath r to allow her to hold a convention and frame a constitution 
and decide whether she should or should not be admitted into the Union — the bill failed by a 
disagreement between the two houses, the House insisting on and the Senate dissenting from 
the provisions contained in the ordinance of 1787. The House insisting on the. interdiction 
of slavery, and the Senate rejecting the proposition of the interdiction of slavery, the bill fell 
through ; it did not pass at that session of Congress. At the next session it was renewed, 
and at the time of its renewal Maine was knocking at our door to be admitted into the Union. 
In the House there was a majority for ihe restriction as to slavery in Missouri ; in the Se- 
nate there was a majority opposed to all restriction. In the Senate; therefore, in order to 
carry through the Missouri bill, or the provision for her admission— or rather authorizing her 
to determine the question of her admission — that bill was coupled with the bill for the ad- 
mission of Maine. They were connected together, and the Senate said to the House, " You 
want a bill for the admission of Maine passed, but you shall not have it, unless you take 
along with it a bill for the admission of Missouri also." There was a majority, a very large 
one, in the Senate, for coupling both together. 

Well, sir, the bill went through all the usual stages of disagreement of committees of con- 
ferenqe, and there were two committees of conference on the occasion before the matter was 
finally settled. And it was finally settled to disconnect the two bills — to admit Maine separ 
rately, without any connection with Missouri, and to insert in the Missouri bill a clause pro- 
posed in the Senate of the United States by Mr. Thomas, Senator from Illinois, restricting 
slavery north of the line 36 deg. 30 min., and leaving it open south of that line, either to 
admit it or not to admit it. Well, sir, the bill finally pased. The committees of conference 
of the two houses ret ommended the detachment of the two cases, and the passage of the 
Missouri bill with the clause 3G deg. 30 min. in it; and so it passed, so it went to Missouri, 
so it for a moment quieted the country, by means of the introduction of the clause 
36 deg. 30 min. You will find, I repeat, sir, if you will take the trouble to look at the jour- 
nals, that on as many as three or four different occasions Mr. Thomas in every instance 
presented the proposition of 36 deg. 30 min. It was finally agreed to; and I take occasion 
to say that among those who voted for the 36 deg. 30 min. were the majority of the South- 
ern members — my friend from Alabama, (Mr. King,) in the Senate, Mr. Pinckney, from 
Maryland, and indeed the majority of the Southern Senators voted in favor of the line 
36 deg. 30 min.; and the majority of the Southern members in tie other house, at the head 
of whom was Mr. Lowndes himself, voted also tor that line. I have no doubt I did also; 
but, as I was Speaker of the House at the time, and the journal does not show how the 
Speaker votes except in the case of a tie, I was not able to ascertain, by a resort to the re- 
cords, how 1 did voie ; but I have very little doubt that I voted, in common wiih my other 
Southern friends, for the adoption, in a spirit of compromise, it is true, of the line 36 deg. 
30 min. 

Wed, sir, so the matter ended in 1820. During that year Missouri held her convention, 
adopted her constitution, sent her delegates to Congress, seeking to be admitted into the 
Union ; but she had inserted a clause in her constitution containing a prohibition of free 
people of color from that State. She came herewith her constitution containing that prohibi- 
tion, and immediately the Northern members took exception to it. The flame which had 
been repressed during the previous session now bur4 forth with double violence throughout 
the whole Union. Legislative bodies all got in motion to keep out Missouri, in consequence 
of her interdiction of free people of color from within her limits. 1 did not arrive at Congress 
that session till January, and w en I got here I found both bodies completely paralyzed in 
consequence of the struggle to exclude Missouri from the Union on account of that prohibition. 

Well, sir, I made the first effoit in the House to settle it. I asked for a committee of thir- 
teen, and a committee of thirteen was granted to me, representing all the old Slates of the 
Union. The committee met. I presented to them a resolution, which was adopted by the 
committee and reported to the House — not Unlike the one to which I will presently call the 
attention of i he Senate — and we should have carried it in the Hou-e but for the voles of Mr. 
Randolph, of Virginia, Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, and Mr. turtou, of North Carolina — 
two of the three, 1 believe, no longer living. These three Southern votes were all cast 
against the compromise, which was prepared by the committee, or rather by myself, as chair- 
man of the committee of thirteen, and defeated it. 

Well, sir, in that condition the thing remained for several days. The greatest^nxiety per- 
vaded ilie country — the public mind was unsettled — men were unhappy — there was a large 
majority of the Ilousothen, as I hope ai.d trust there is now a large majoii y in Congress, in 
favor of an equitable accommodation or settlement of the question ; and the resolution would 



26 

have been adopted, I believe, but when it came to the vote of yeas and nays, unfortunately 

then — mere unfortunately then, I hope, than now, if there should be occasion for it now 

there were few Curtiuses and Leonidases willing to risk themselves for the safety and securi- 
ty of their country. I endeavored to avail myself of that good feeling, as far as I could ; and, 
altera few days had elapsed, ^brought forwatd another proposition; a new one, perfectly 
unpracti>ed in this country, either before or since, as far as I know. 

I proposed a joint committee of the two houses ; that of the House to consist of twenty- 
three membeis, (the number of the Senate committee I do not recollect, - ) aud that this com- 
mittee should be appointed by ballot ; for at that time Mr. Taj lor, of New York, was in the 
chair, and Mr. Taylor was the very man who had first proposed the restriction upon Missouri. 
He proposed that she should only be admitted on the principle of the ordinance of 1787 ; I 
proposed therefore, that the committee be appointed by ballot. Well, sir, my motion was 
carried by a largo majority ; and members came to me from ail quarters of the House, and 
said, " Whom, Mr. Clay, do you want to have with you on the committee?" I made out 
my list of wenty- three members, and I venture to say that that h ppened on that occasion 
which will haidly ever happen again, eighteen of the twenty-three were elected on the first 
ballot, and the remaining five ou my list having the largest number of votes, but not the ma- 
jority, I moved to dispense with any farther balloting, and ihat these five should be added to 
the eighteen, thus completing the committee of twenty-three. One or two genii, men, Mr. 
Live,rmore, of New Hampshire, and one or two others, declined to serve ou the committee ; and, 
very much to my regret, and somewhat to my annoyance, the lamented Mr. Randolph and 
another person were placed iu tHeir situation — I forgot whether done by ballot or by the 
Speaker ; it is enough to say they were put on the committee. 

Well, sir, the Senate immediately agreed to the proposition, appointed its committee, and 
we met in this hall ou the Sabbath day, within two or three days of the close of the session, 
when the wi.ole nation was waiting with breathless anxiety for some final and healing mea- 
sure U| oil tlie distracting subject-which occupied our attention. We met hereon that day, 
and, accordingly, the moment we met, Mr. Randolph made a suggestion which I knew 
would b^ attended with the greatest embarrassment aud difficulty. He contended that over 
the two committees of the two houses the chairman of the House committee htd a right to 
preside, and he was about to insist at some length that the two committees should be blended 
together, and that I should preside over both. ] instantly interposed, and said that I did not 
think that was the correct mode, but that the chairman of the committee of each house should 
preside over his own committee, and that when the committee of one house matured and 
adopted a proposition, it should be submitted to the other committee, and if agreed to by them, 
it should then be reported to the two houses, and its adoption recommended- That course 
was agreed upon, and Mr. Holmes, I believe, of Maine, presided over the committee of the 
Senate, and I presided over the committee of the House. I did then, what 1 have protested I 
would not, do at this session, took too much the le d in the discussion. 

I brought forward the proposition which I will refer to presently ; aud T did more, I took 
the trouble to ascertain the views of each member of the committee — I polled the committee, 
if I may use the expression. I said, now, gentlemen, we do not want a proposition carried 
hereby a simple majority and reported to the House, there to be rejected. 1 am for some- 
thing priicical, something conclusive, something decisive upon this agitating question, and it 
should be carried by a good majority. How will you vote, Mr. A.? how will you vote, Mr. 
B. 7 how will you vote, Mr. C. .' and I polled them iu that way. Well sir, to my very great 
happiness, a sufficient number responded affirmatively, that they would vote for the proposi- 
tion, to enable me to know that, if they continued to vote that way in the two houses, of 
which I had not a particle of doubt iu ihe woild, the proposition would be carried in the two 
houses. Accomingly, it having been agreed upon by both committees, and reported tj their 
respeciive houses, it was finally adopted. 

This joint resolution for the admission of Missouri was passed in 1821. (I find I have been 
furnis ied with one which was proposed, but not adopted. The right one is contained in tho 
statutes at large ; I have seen it there ) 

Well, sir, the resolution was finally adopted. I can state, without reading it, what its 
provisions are. It declares that, if there be any provision in the Constitution of Missuuri, in- 
compatible with the Consi.itut.on of the United States, Missouri shall foibear to enforce the 
repugnant piovisions of her constitution, and thai* she siiall by some solemn aud authentic 
act declare that she will not enforce any provisions of her contitiition which are incompati- 
ble with the constitution of the United Slates ; and upon her passage of such a solemn and 
authentic ct, the President of the U.iited States — who was at that time Mr. Monroe — 
shall make proclamation of the fact ; and thereupon, and without any farther legislation of 
Congress, Missouri .-hull be admitted into the Union. 

Now, sir, I want to call your attention to this period of history, and to the transactions 
which took place during the progress of the discussion upon the resolution. 



27 

During the discussion which took place in the House at that time, from day to day, and 
from night to nighi— for the discussions frequently ran into the night — we who were for ad- 
mitting Missouri into the Union said lo our brethren from the North, " Why, gentlemen, if 
there he any provision in the Constitution of Missouri which is repugnant to the constitution 
of the United States, it is a nullity. The Constitution of the United Stales, by virtue of its 
own operation — its own self-operation — vacates it. Any tribunal on earth, before which the 
question may be brought, must pronounce the Constitution of the United States paramount, 
and must pronounce invalid the repugnant provis on> of tho constitution of Missouri." Well, 
sir, the argument was turned, and twisted, and u-ed in every possible variety of lorm. All 
was in vain. An inflexible majority stood out to the last against the admission of Missouri ; 
and yet the reso'ution — 

Mr Underwood. I have it here. 

Mr. Clay. If you will read it, I shall be obliged to you. 
Mr. Underw«.od read the resolution as follows: 
Resolution providing for the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union ou a certain 

condition. 
Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congi ess assembled, That Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an equal fooling 
With the original States in all respects whatever, upon the lundamental condition that the 
fourth clause of the 26th secion of the third article of the Constitution, submitted on the part 
of said state to Congress, shall never be construed to authorise the passage of any law, a>id 
that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, hy which any citizen of either ol' the States 
of this Union shall be excluded fr. m the enjoyment of any of the privates and immunities 
to whch such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States: Provided, 
That the Legislature of the said state, hy a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the 
said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United 
States, mi or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act ; 
upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; where- 
upon, and without any farther proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said 
State into tl e Union shall be considered as con. plete. 
[Approved March 2, 1832 ] 

Mr. Clay. There is the reselntion, sir, and you see it is precisely what I have stated. 
After all this excitement throughout the country, reaching to such an alarming point that the 
Union itself was supposed to be in the most imminent peril and danger, the parties were sa- 
tisfied by the declaration of an incontestable principle of Constitutional law, that when the 
Constitution ofa Slate is violative in its provisions of the Constitution of iheUnited Sutes.the 
constitution of the United States is paramount, and the constitution of the State in that par. 
ticukr is a nullity and void. That was all. They wanted something as a justification, and 
this appeared, at'least, a justification of the course they took. There is a great deal of lan- 
guage there of a high-sounding character— that it shall be a fundamental act, a solemn act, 
an authentic act ; but. after all, when you come to strip it of its veibiage, it is nothing but 
the announcement of the principle that'the Constitution of the United States is paramount 
over the local Constitution of any one of the States of the Union. 

Mr. President, I may draw from that transaction in our history which we are now examin- 
ing, this moral ; that now, as then, if we will only suffer our reason to have its scope and 
sway, and to still and hush the passi n and exc tement that has been created by the occasion, 
the "difficulty will be more than half removed, in the settlement, upon just and amicable 
pri ciples, of any questions which unhapp ly divide us at this moment. 

But, sir, I w ish to contrast the plan of accommodation which is proposed by me with that 
which s offered by the Missouri compromise line being extended to the Pacific ocean, and to 
ask of gentlemen'from the South, and gentlemen from the North, too, which is most proper, 
which mo>t just, and to which there is the least cause of objection. 

Now, sir, w a iat was done hy the M ssouri line? (Slavery was positively interdicted North 
of that line. The question of the admission or exclusion of slavery South of that line was not 
settled. There Was no provision that slavery should be introduced or established South of 
that line. In point of Ret, it existed in all the tenitory South of the line of 36 deg- 30 mm., 
embracing Arkansas and Louisiana. It was not necessary then, "u is mie, to insert a clause 
admitting slavery at that time. But, sir, if there is a power to interdict, there is a power to 
ad,, it : and 1 put it to gentlemen from the South are they prepared to be satisfied with the line 
of 36 de<r. 30 niin., interdicting slavery to the North of it, and giving them no guaranty for 
the possession of slavery South of that line? The honor Ma Senator from Mississippi told us 
the oliier day that he was not prepared to be satisfied with that compromise line. He told 

us, if 1 understood him rightly, that nothing short of a positive introduction 

Mr. Fi.ote. — Recognition. _ 

Mr: Clay.— That nothing short of a positive recognition of slavery south of the line of 30 



28 

30 would satisfy him. Well, is there any body who believes that you could get twenty votes 
in this body, or a proportional number in the other House, to a declaration in favor of the 
recognition of slavery south of the line of 3G* 30? It is impossible. All that you can get, 
all that you can expect to get, all that was proposed at the last session, was action on the 
north of the line, and non-action as regards slavery south of that line. It is interdicted on 
one side, without any corresponding provision for its admission on the other side of the line 
of36 J 30. 

Now, sir, when I came to consider the subject, and to compare the provisions of the line 
of 36" deg. 30m. — the Missouri compromise line — with the plan which I propose for the ac- 
commodation of this question, what said I to myself? Why, if I offer the line of 36 deg. 
30m., interdicting slavery north of it, and leaving the question open south of that line, I offer 
that which is illusory to the nouth ; I offer that which will deceive them, if they suppose 
that slavery will be introduced south of that line. It is better for them, I said to myself — it 
is better for the whole South, that there should be non action on both sides, than that there 
should be action interdicting slavery on one side, without action for the admission of slavery 
on the other side of the line. Is it not so? What, then, is gained by the South, if the .Mis- 
souri line is extended to the Pacific, with an interdiction of slavery north of it ? Why, sir, 
one of the very arguments which have been most often and most seriously urged by the South 
has been this, that we do not want you to legislate upon the subject at all ; you ought not 
to touch it ; you have no power ov.-r it. I do not concur, as is well known from what I have 
said upon this occasion, in this view of the s..bject. But that is the Souther , argument. We 
do not want you to legislate at all on the subject of slavery ; but if you adopt the Missouri 
line and extend it to the Pacific, and interdict slavery north of that line, you do legislate upon 
the subject of slavery, and you legislate without a corresponding equivalent of legislation on 
the subject of slavery south of the line. For, if there be legislation interdicting slavery north 
of the line, the principle of equality would require that there should be legislation admitting 
slavery south of the Inc. 

Sir, 1 have said that I never could vote for it, and I repeat that I never can, and never 
will vote for it ; and no earthly power shall ever make me vote to plant slavery where sla- 
very does not exist. Still, if there be a majority — and there ought to be such a majority — 
for interdicting slavery north of the line, there ought to be an equal majority — if equality and 
justice be done to the South — to admit slavery south of the line. And if there be a majority 
ready to accomplish both of these purposes, though I cannot concur in the action, yet I would 
be one of the last to create any distuibance, I would be one ol the first to acquiesce in such 
legislation, though it is contrary to my own judgment and my own conscience. I think, then, 
it would be better to keep the whole of these territories untouched by any legislation b) Con- 
gress on the subject of slavery, leaving it open, undecided, without any action of Congress in 
relation to it ; that it would be best for the South, and best for all the views which the South 
has, from time to time, disclosed to ns as correspondent with her wishes. 

I know it may be said with regard to these ceded territories, as it is said with regard to 
California, that non-legislation implies the same thing as the exclusion of slavery. That we 
cannot help. That Congress is not reptoachable for. If nature has pronounced the doom of 
slavery upon those territories — if she has declared, bv her immutable laws, that slavery can- 
not and shall not be introduced there, whom can you reproach but nature or nature's Cod ? 
Congress you cannot ; Congress abstains ; Congress is passive ; Congress is non-active in 
regard to the subject of slavery south and north of the line ; or rather Congress, according to 
the plan which proposes to extend no line, leaves the entire theatre of these territories un- 
touched by legislative enactment, either to exclude or admit slavery. 

Well, sir, I ask again — if you will listen to the voice of calm and dispassionate reason — I 
ask of any man from the South to rise and tell me if it is not better for his section of the 
Union that Congress should remain passive, on both sides of any ideal line, than that it should 
interdict slavery on one side of the line and be passive in regard to it on the other side of the 
line. 

!Sir, I am taxing both the physical and intellectual powers which a kind Providence has 
bestowed upon me, too much— too much by far — though I beg to be permitted, if the Senate 
will have patience with me, to conclude what I have to say, for I do not dcsir« to trespass 
another day upon your time and patience, as I am approaching, though 1 have not yet nearly 
arrived at, the conclusion. 

Mr. Mangum. If the Senator will permit me, f will move an adjournment. 

Mr Clay. No, sir, no: I will conclude. I think I can get on better to-day than I shall 
be able to do if the subject be postponed. 

.Sir, this Union is threatened with subversion. I want, Mr. President, to take a very rapid 
glance at the course of pub'ic measures in this Union presently. I want, however, before I 
do that, to ask the Senate to look back upon the career which this country has run since the 
adoption of this constitution down to the present day. Wus there ever a nation upon which 



29 

the sun of heaven has shone that has exhibited so much of prosperity? At the Commence- 
inensof this Government our population amounted to about (bur millions ; it has now reached 
npward of twenty millions. Our territory was limited chiefly and principally to the border 
upon the Atlantic ocean, and that which includes the southern shores of the interior lakes of 
our country. 

Our country now extends from the Northern provinces of Great Britain to the Rio Grander 
and the Gulf of Mexico on one side, and from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific on the other 
side — the largest extent of territory under any Government that exists on the face of the 
earth, with only two solitary exceptions. Our tonnage, from being nothing, has risen in mag- 
nitude and amount so as to rival that of the nation who has been proudly characterized •' the 
mistress of the ocean." We have gone through many wars — wars too with the very nation 
from whom we broke off in 177b, as weak and feeble colonies, and asserted our independence 
as a member of the family of nations. And, sir, we came out of that struggle, unequal as it 
was — armed as she was at all points, in consequence of just having come out of her long 
Etrus^Ies with other European nations, and unarmed as we were at all points, in consequence 
of the habits and nature of our country and its institutions— we came, I say, oat of that war 
without any loss of honor whatever — we emerged from it gloriously. 

In every Indian war — and we have been engaged in many of them — our armies have tri- 
umphed ; and without speaking at all as to the causes of the recent war with Mexico, whether 
it was right or wrong, and abstaining from any expression of opinion as to the justice or pro- 
priety of the war, when once commenced all must admit that, with respect to the gallantry 
of our armies, the glory of our triumphs, there is no page or pages of history which record 
more brilliant successes. With respect to one commander of an important portion of our 
army I need say nothing here ; no praise is necessary in behalf of one who has been elevated 
by the voice of his country to the highest station she could place him in, mainly on account 
of his glorious military career. And of another, less fortunate in many respects than some 
other military commanders, I must take the opportunity' of saying, that for skill, for science, 
for strategy, for ability and daring fighting, for chivalry of individuals and of masses, that 
portion of the American army which was conducted by the gallant Scott, as the chief com- 
mander, stands unrivalled either by the deeds of Cortez himself, or by those of any other 
commander in ancient or modern times. 

Sir, our prosperity is unbounded — nay, Mr. President, I sometimes fear that it is in the 
wantonness of that prosperity that many of the threatening ills of the moment have arisen. 
Wild and erratic schemes have sprung up throughout the whole country, some of which have 
even found their way into legislative halls ; and there is a restlessness existing among us 
which 1 fear will requre the chastisement of Heaven to bring us back to a sense of the im- 
measurable benefits and blessings which have been bestowed upon us by Providence. At 
this moment — with the exception of here and there a particular department in the manufac- 
turing business of the country — all is prosperity and peace, and the nation is rich and power- 
ful. Our couutry has grown to a magnitude, to a power and greatness, such as to command 
the respect, if it does not awe the apprehensions, of the powers of the earth, with whom we 
come in contact. 

Sir, do I depict with colors too lively the prosperity which has resulted to us from the oper- 
ations of this Union? Have I exaggerated in any particular her power, her prosperity, or her 
greatness? And now, sir, let me go a little into detail with respect to sway in the councils 
of the nation, whether from the North or the South, during the sixty years of unparalleled 
prosperity that we have enjoyed. During the first twelve years of the administration of the 
Government Northern counsels rather prevailed ; and out of them sprang the Bank of tho 
United States, the assumption of the State debts, bounties to the fisheries, protection to our 
domestic manufactures — I allude to the act of 1789 — neutrality in the wars of Europe, Jay'a 
treaty, the alien and sedition laws, and war with France. I do not say, sir, that these, the 
leading and prominent measures which were adopted during the administrations of Washing- 
ton and the elder Adams, were carried exclusively by Northern counsels — they could not have 
been — but mainly by the ascendancy which Northern counsels had obtained in the affairs of 
the nation. So, sir, of the later period — for the last fifty y r ears. 

I do not mean to say that Southern counsels alone have carried the measures which I am 
about to enumerate. 1 know they could not exclusively have carried them, but I say that they 
have been carried by their preponderating influence, with the co-operation, it is true — the 
large co-operation iu some instances — of the Northern section of tho Union. And what are 
those measures? During that fifty years, or nearly that period, in which Southern counsels 
have preponderated, the embargo and other commercial restrictions of non-intercourse and 
non-importation were imposed ; war with Great Britain, the Bank of the United States 
overthrown, protection enlarged and extended to domestic manufactures — I allude to the 
passage of the act of 1815 or 1816— the Bank of the United States re-established, the same 
tank put down, re-established by Southern counsels and put down by Southern counsels, 



30 

Louisiana acquired, Florida bought, Texas annexed, war with Mexico, California and other 
territories acquired from Mexico by conquest and purchase, protection superseded, a d free 
trade established, Indians removed We-t of the Mississippi, and fifteen new States admitted 
into ihe Union, ll * very possible, sir, that in this enumeratiou I may have omitied some of 
the important measures which have been adopted during ibis later period of lime — tlie last 
fifty years — but these I believe to be the most prominent ones. 

Now, sir, I do not deduce from the enumeration of the measures adapted by the one sida 
or the other any ju.-t cause of reproach either upon one side or the other; though one side 
or the other has predominated in the two periods to which I have referred. The-e measures 
were, to say die lea-t, the joint work of bo li pardes, and neither of them have any j.st 
cause to reproach die other. But sir, I rausi say, in all kindii' ss and sincerity, lhat lea^t of 
all ought the South to reproach the Nunh, when we look at the long list of measures which, 
under her sway in the counsels ol the nation, have been adopted ; when vv» reflect dial even 
oppos te doctrines h-ive been Irom time to time advance;! by her; that the establishment of 
the Bulk of the United States, which was done under the administration of Mr. Madison, 
met with the co-operation of ihe South — I do not say the whole South — I do not, when I 
speak of the South or the North, speak of the entire South or the entire North; I speak of 
the prominent and larger proportion of Southern and Northern men. It was during Mr. 
Madiso.,'s administration that the Bank of the United States was established. My friend, 
whose sickness — which 1 very much deplore — prevents us from having his attendance upon 
this occasioo, (Mr. Calhoun,) was the chairman of the commiitee, and carried the measure 
thioug i Congress. I voted for it with all my heart. Although I had b en instrumental with 
other Sou i hern votes in putting down the Bank of the United States, 1 changed my opinion 
and co-operated in the establishment of the Bank of 1816. The same bank was again put 
down by Southern counsels, with Gen. Ja ksou at their head, at a later period. Again, with 
respect to the policy of protection. The South in 1815 — I mean the prominent Southern 
men, the I imeuted Lowudes, Mr. Calhoun, and others — united in extending a certaiii mea- 
sure of protection to domestic manufactures as well as the North. 

We find a few years aft rward the South interposing most serious objections to this 
policy, mid one member of the South, threatening on that ocoasion, a dissolution of the Union 
or separation. Now, sir, let us take another view of the question — and I would remark that 
all these views are brought forward not in a spirit of reproach, but of conciliation — not to 
provoke, or exasperate, hut to quiet, to produce harmony and repose, if possible. What 
have been the territorial acquisitions made by this country, and to what interests have they 
conduced? Florida, where slavery exists, has been introduced; Louisiana, or all the most 
valuable part of that Stale — for although there is a large extent of territory north of the line 
3ii Q 30, iu point of intrinsic value and importance, 1 would not give the single Slate of 
Louisiana t r the whole of i — all Louisiana, I say, with the exception of that whicli lies 
north 36 J 30, including Oregon, to which we obtained title mainly on the ground of its 
being a part of the acquisition of Louisiana ; all Texas ; all the territories which have been 
acquired by the Government of the United Stales during its sixty years operatitui have been 
slave territories, the theatre of slavery, with the exceplioti that I have mentioned of that 
lying north of the line 36** 30. 

And here, iu the case of a war made essentially by the South — growing out of the annex- 
ation of Texas, which was a measure proposed by the Soulh in ihe councils of the country, 
and which led to the war with Mexico — I do not say all of the South, but the major portion 
of the South pressed the annexation of Texas upon the country — that measure, as 1 have 
said, led to the wat with Mexico, and the war w.th Mexico led to the acquisition of those 
territories which now constitute the bone of contention between the different members of the 
Confederacy. And now, sir, for the first time after the three grrat acquisitions of Texas, 
Florida, and Louisiana have been made and have redounded to the benefit of the South — 
now, for the first time, when three territories are attempted to be introduced without the in- 
stitution of slavery, I put it to the hearts of my countrymen of the South, if it is light to 
press matters to the disastrous consequences which have been indicated no longer ago than 
this very morning, ou the occasion of the presentation of certain resolutions — even extending 
to u dissolution of the Union. Mr. President, I cannot believe it. 
Mr. Undehwood. Will the Senator give way for an adjournment? 

Mr. Clay. Oh, no ; if J do not weary the patience of the Senate, I prefer to go on. I 
think I can begin to see land. I shall soon come to the conclusion of what I have to say. 
Such is the Union, and such are the glorious fruits which are now threatened with subver- 
sion and destruction. Well, sir, the first question which naturally arises, is, supposing the 
Union to be dissolved for any of the causes or grievances which are complained of, how far will 
dissolution furnish a remedy for those grievances? If the Union is to be dissolved for any 
existing cau.-e, it will be because slavery is interdicted or not aliow-d to be introduced into 
the ceded territories ; or because slavery is threatened to be abolished in the District of Co- 



31 

lumbia ; or because fugitive slaves are not restored, as in my opinion they ought to be, to 
their masters. These, I believe, would be the causes, if there be any causes which can 
lead to the dreadful event to which I have refened. Let us suppose the Union dissolved ; 
what remedy does it. in a severed state, furnish for the grievances complained of in its united 
condition ? Will you be able ht the South to push slavery into the ceded territory ? How 
are you to do it, supposing the North, or all )he States l.orth of the Potomac, in possession 
of the navy and army of the United States? Can you expect, I say, under these circum- 
stances, that if there is a dissolution of the Union \on can carry slavery into California and 
New Mexico? Sir, you cannot dream of such au occurrence. 

If it were abolished in the District of Columbia and the Union were dissolved, would the 
dissolution of the Union restore slavery in the District of Columbia? Is your chance for 
the recovery of your fugitive slaves safer in a state of dissolution or of severance of the 
Union than when in the Uuion itself? Why, sir, what is the state of the fact? In the 
Union you lose some slaves and recover others ; but here let nie revert to a fact which I 
ought to have noticed before, because it is highly creditable to the courts and juries of the 
free States. In every instance, as far as my information extends, in which an appeal has 
been made to the courts of justice to recover penalties from those who have assisted in de- 
coying slaves from their masters — in every instance, as far as I have heard, the court has 
aeser ed the rights of the own^r, and the jury has promptly returned an adequate verdict on 
his behalf. Well, sir, there is then some remedy while you are a part of the Union for the 
recovery of your slaves, and some indemnificaiion for their loss. What would you have, if 
the Union was severed? Why, then the several parts would be independent of each other 
— foreign countries — and slaves escaping from one to the other would be like slaves escaping 
from the United States to Canada. There would be no right of extradition, no right to de- 
mand your slaves; no right to appeal to the courts of justice to indemnify you for the loss 
of your slaves. Where one slave escapes now by running away from his master, hundreds 
and thousands would escape if the Union were dissevered — I care not how or where you 

' run the line, or whether independent sovereignties be established. Well, sir, finally, will you, 
in case of a dissolution of the Union, be safer with your slaves within the separated portions 

.of the States than you are now? Mr. President, that they will escape much more frequently 

'from the border States no one will deny r . 

And, sir, I must take occasion here to say that, in my opinion, there is no right on the 
part of any one or more of the States to secede from the Union. War and dissolution of the 
Union are identical and inevitable, in my opinion. There can be a dissolution of the Uuion 
only by consent or by war. Consent no one can anticipate, from any existing state of things, 
is likely to be given, and war is the only alternative by which a dissolution could be accom- 
plished. If consent were given — if it were possible that we were to be separated by one 
great line — in less than sixty days after such consent was given war would break out 
between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding portious of this Uuion — between the two in- 
dependent parts into which it would be erected in virtue of the act of separation. In less 
than sixty days, I believe, our slaves from Kentucky, flocking over in numbers to the other 
side of the river, WuuJd be pursued by their owners. Our hot and ardent ppirits would be 
restrained by no sense of the right which appertains to the independence of the other side 
of the river, should that be the line of separation. They would pursue their slaves into the 
adjacent free States; they would be repelled, and the consequence would be that, in lets 
than sixty days, war would be blazing in every part of this now happy and peaceful land. 

And, sir, how are you going to separate the States of this Confederacy? In my humble 
opinion, Mr. President, we should begin with at least three separate Confederacies. There 
would be a Confederacy of the North, a Confederacy of the .'Southern Atlantic slaveholding 
States, and a Confederacy of the valley of the Mississippi. My life upon it, that the vast 
population which has already concentrated and will concentrate on the head-waters and the 
tributaries of the Mississippi will never give their consent that the mouth of that river shall 
be held subject to the power of any foreign State or community whatever. Such, I believe, 
would be the consequences of a dissolution of the Union, immediately ensuing ; but other 
Confederacies would spring up from time to time, as dissatisfaction and discontent were dis- 
seminated throughout the country — the Confederacy of the lakes, perhaps the Confederacy 
of New England, or of the Middle States. Ah, sir, the veil which covers these sad and dis- 
astrous events that lie beyond it, is too thick to be penetrated or lifted by any mortal eye or hand. 
Mr. Presideut, I am directly opposed to any purpose of secession or separation. I am for 
staying within the Union, and defying any portion of this confederacy to expel me or drive 
me out of the Union. I am for staying within the Union and fighting for my rights, if ne- 
cessary, with the sword, within the bounds and under the safeguard of the Uuion. I am 
for vindicating those rights, not by being driven out of the Union harshly and unceremoni- 
ously by any portion of this confederacy. Here I am within it, and here I mean to staud 
and die, as far as my individual wishes or purposes can go —within it to protect my property 



32 

and defend myself, defying all the power ou earth to expel me or drive me from the situation 
in which I am placed. And would there not be more safety in righting within the Union 
than out of it? Suppose your rights to be violated, suppose wrong to be done you,atxgres' 
&ions to be perpetrated upon you, can you uot better vindicate them — if you have occasion 
to rosort to the last necessity, the sword, for a restoration of those rights — within, and with the 
sympathies of a large portion of the population of the Union, than by being without the 
Union, when a large portion of the papulation have sympathies adverse to your own? You 
can vindicate your rights within the Union better than if expelled from the Union, and driven 
from it without ceremony and without authority. 

.Sir, I have said that 1 thought there was no right on the part of one or moro States to 
secede from the Union. I think so. Tlie Constitution of the United States was made not 
merely lor the generation that then existed, but for posterity — unlimited, undefined, endless, 
perpetual posterity. And every State that then came into the Union, and every State that 
has since cone into the Union, came into it binding itself, by indissoluble bands, to remain 
within the Union itself, and to r rnaiu within it by its posterity forever. Like another ol 5 
the sacred connexions, in private life, it is a marriage which no human authority can dissolve 
or divorce the parlies from. And if I may be allowed to refer to some examples in private 
life, let me say to the North and to the South, what husband and wife say to each other 
We have mutual faults ; neither of us is perfect ; nothing in the form of humanty is per- 
fect ; let us, then, be kind to each other — forbearing, forgiving each other's faults — and 
above all, let us live in happiness and peace together. 

Mr. President, J have said, what I solemnly believe, that dissolution of the Union and 
war are identical and inevitable ; that they are convertible terms ; and such a war as it 
would be, following a dissolution of the Union ! Sir, we may search the pages of history, 
and none so ferocious, so bloody, so implacable, so exterminating — not even the wars of 
Greece, including those of the Commoners of England and the revolutions of France — none, 
none of them all would rage with such violence, or be characterized with such bloodshed and 
enormities as would the war which must succeed, if that event ever happens, the dissolution 
of the Union. And what would be its termination? Standing armies, and navies, to an ex- 
tent stretching the revenues of each portion of the dissevered members, would take place. An 
exterminating war would follow — not, sir, a war of two or three years duration, but a war of 
inierminable duration — and exterminating wars would ensue, until, after the struggles and ex- 
haustion of both parties, some Philip or Alexander, some Csesar or Napoleon, would arise and 
cut the Gordian knot, and solve the problem of the capacity of man for self-government, and 
crush tho liberties of both the severed portions of this common empire. Can you doubt it ? 

Look at all history — consult her pages, ancient or modern — look at human nature ; look at 
the contest in which you would be engaged in the supposition of war following upon the dis- 
solution of the Union, such as 1 have suggested ; and I ask you if it is possible for you to 
doubt that the final disposition of the whole would bs some despot treading down the liber- 
ties of the people — the final result would be the extinction of this last and glorious light which 
is leading all mankind, who are gazing upon it, in the hope and anxious expectation that thp 
liberty which prevails here will sooner or later be diffused throughout the whole of the civil- 
ized world. Sir, can you lightly contemplate these consequences? Can you yield yourself 
to the tyranny of passion, amid dangers which I have depicted in colors far too tame of what 
the result would be if that direful eveni to which I have referred should ever occur? Sir, I 
implore gentlemen, I adjure them, whether f>om the South or the North, by all that they 
hold dear in this world — by all their love of liberty — by all their veneration for their ances- 
tors — by all their regard for posterity — by all their gratitude to Him who has bestowed on 
them such unnumbered and countless blessings — by all the duties which they owe to man- 
kind — and by all the duties which they owe to themselves, to pause, solemnly to pause at the 
edge of the precipice, before the fearful and dangerous leap is taken into the yawning abyss 
below, from which none who ever take it shall return in safety. 

Finally, Mr. President, and in conclusion, I implore, as the best blessing which Heaven 
can bestow upon me, upon earth, that if the direful event of the dissolution of this Union 
is to happen, I shall not survive to behold the sad -ind heart-rending spectacle. 



STRINGER & TOWNSEND'S 

EDITION, IN PERIODICAL FORM, 

OF 

COOPER'S NOVELS, 

At Twenty-Five Cents Per Volume. 



Stringer & Townsexd have made an arrangement with J. Femmore Coor-ER, 
Esq., to publish all of his Talks and Ko.ma.ncks, at the reduced price of Twenty- 
Five Cents per volume. The opportunity is thus prcscutcd to purchase this 
Popular Series of Tales at a price within the means of every person ; and a 
Reduction of Twenty Per Cent, will be made to persons purchasing tho 
complete set, 



EMBRAOING-- 



SEA LIONS, or the Lost Sealers. 



OAK OPEN I NGS, or. the Bee 
Hunter. 2 vols. .... 

JACK TIER, or the Florida Reef. 
2 vols 

THE CRATER, or Vulcan's Peak. 
2 vols 

REDSKINS, or Indian and Ingin. 
2 vols 

SATANSTOE, or Littletage Manu- 
scripts. 2 vols. ..... 

CHAIN BEARER, a Tale of the 
Colony. 2 vols. 

AFLOAT AND ASHORE, or the 
Adventures of Miles Wallingford. 
4 vols. . . . . . . 1 

DEERSLAYER, or the First War 

Path. 2 vols. ..... 

HOMEWARD BOUND, or the 

Chase. 2 vols. ..... 

HOME AS FOUND, a Tale. 2 vols. 
HEADSMAN, a Novel. . " 

HEIDENMAUER, a Tale. 
LAST OF THE MOHICANS, a 

Tale of 1757. 2 vols. 
LIONEL LINCOLN, or the 

Leaguer of Boston. 2 vols. 



WATER WITCH, or the Skimmer 

of the Seas. 2 vol9. 
MERCEDES OF CASTILE. 

2 vols 

MONIKINS. 2 vols 

NED MYERS, or a Life Before the 

Mast. 1 vol. ; 

PILOT, a Tale of the Sea. 2 vols. . 
PATH-FINDER, or the Inland Sea. 

2 vols 



50 

50 

50 

25 
50 

50 



PIONEERS, or the Sources of Tin; 

Susquehanna. 2 vols. . . .50 

PRAIRIE. 2 vols 50 

RED ROVER. 2 vols. ... 50 
SPY, a Tale of the Neutral Ground. 

2 vols. ...... 

TWO ADMIRALS, a Tale of the 

Sea. 2 vols. ..... 

TRAVELLING BACHELOR. 

2 vols 

WYANDOTTE. 2 vols. . 
WEPT OF WISH-TON-WISH. 

2 vols. ...... 

WlNG-AND-WING, or Le Feu- 

FOLLET. 2 Vols. ..... 

BRAVO, a Tale. £ vols. . 



50 

50 

50 
50 

50 

50 
id 



In all Thirty-Three Different Works, or Sixty- Seven Volumes. 



N. B Any of the above "Works can be purchased separately, and forwarded 
by Mail to any part of the country. The Publishers have constantly on hand 
Complete Scls, bound in a Uniform Library Style, 2 vols, in one, 75 cents. 

These Works are sold by all Booksellers and Periodical Dealers throughout the country. 

STRINGER & TOWNSEND. Publishers, 

222 Broadway, New-York. 



X 



yJ'ULAR MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. 



PUBLISHED BY 



£§©&©, ©TTKDINKkiEliS & T@WMi^E), 



222 BROADWAY, NEW-YORK. 



OOPER.— The Sea Lions; or, the Lost Sealers. 

n,' ( 2 vols. .50 

■ he Oak Openings ; or, the Bee Hunter. '2 vols. 50 

- Jack Tier ; or the Florida Reef. 2 vols. - - 50 

The Crater; or, Vulcan's Peak. " 50 

Kedskins. 2 vols. 50 

Satanstoe. 2 vols. 50 

r The Chainbearer. 2 vols. - • - . . 50 
Ellinor Wvllis. 2 vols. .... 50 

Afloat and Ashore. 4 vols. • - - - 1 DO 
Bravo. 2 vols. --..... 50 

Deerslayer. 2 vols. 50 

Homeward Bound. 2 vols. .... 50 

Home as Found. 2 vols. 50 

Headsman. 2 vols. ........ 50 

Heidenmauer. . . . . . -50 

Last of the Mohicans. 2 vols. ... 50 

Lionel.Lincoln. 2 vols. - - . . - 50 
Mercedes of Castile. 2 vols. • - • 50 

Monikins. 2 vols. 50 

Ned Myers. 1 vol. 25 

Pilot. 2 vols. 50 

PathFinder. 2 vols. ...... 50 

Precaution. 2 vols. 50 

Pioneers. 2 vols 50 

Prairie. 2 vols. 50 

Red Rover. 2 vols. 50 

Spy. 2 vols. 50 

Two Admirals. 2 vols. 50 

Travelling Bachelor. 2 vols. .... 50 

Wyandotte. 2 vols. 50 

Wept of Wish-ton-Wish. 2 vols. ... 50 

Water Witch. 2 vols. 50 

Wing and Wing. 2 vols. 50 

HERBERT.— Frank Forester's Field Sports of 
the United States and British Provinces of North 
America. 2 vols. 8vo. Cloth. - - - - 4 00 

Frank Forester's Fish and Fishing of the 
United Stales and British Provinces of North 
America. 1 vol. 8vo. Cloth. - - - . 3 00 
DeRmot O'Brien ; or, the Taking of Treda^fo. 50 

Marmaduke Wvvil. .... . 37,1 

Tales op the Spanish Seas. .... 25" 

GATLIN'S Notes of Eight Years' Travhi. in 
Europe with his Indian Collection. With nu- 
merous Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo. - - • 4 00 
CLARK — The Literary Remains of the late 

Willis G. Clark. 1 50 

DU ^f As —The Count of Monte-Christo. 2 vols. 1 00 
The Memoirs of a Physician. 2 vols. - - 1 00 
Fernande; or, the Fallen Ansel. 50 

George ; or, the Planter of the Isle of France. - 50 
The Thousand and One Phantoms. — 

The War of the Women. 50 

Genevieve ; or, the Chevalier of Maison Rou»e. 50 

The Two Dianas. - 75 

SUE.— Seven Capital Sins ; eornprisin<j Pride, 50 

Envy, Anger, Voluptuousness, Indolence, 

Gluttony, Idleness. .... Each 25 

Matilda ; or, the Memoirs of a Young Woman. 50 

Martin the Foundling. Illustrated. 2 vols. 100 

Martin the Foundling. Plain. - 50 

Mysteries of Paris. 50 

The Salamander. 25 

Female Bluebeard. 25 

Tiierese Dunoyer. 25 

Mysteries of London. 2 vols. - • 1 00 

Colonel de Surville. \2\ 

Mysteries of the Heath. .... 25" 

Temptation. ........ 25 

REYNOLDS.— Life in London; or, Virtue and Vice 

Contrasted. 2 vols. 1 00 

Ellen Munroe : a Sequel to Life in London. 

2 vols. 1 00 

Esther de Medina; or the Crimes of London. 

2 vols. 1 00 

The Reformed Highway-man : Sequel to Esther 

de Medina. 2 vols. 1 00 

Faust : a Romance of the Secret Tribunals. . 50 

• Wallace ; or, the Hero of Scotland. - - 50 

COCKTON.— The- Prince. - ... ... . - 50 

The Love Match. - '•'' - .' . . . 50 
Silvester Sound, the Somnambulist. • • 37* 

GREY, (Mrs.).— The Rectory Guest; or, Magde- 

len anil Marcia. 25 

Aline ; or, an did F iend's Story. • • . -25 
DE ST AEL, (Madame; -Corisne ; »r. 'ia^ . 60 1 



MAXWELL.— Brian O'Linn; or, Luck is Every- 
thing. Illustrated. -60 

The Dark Lady of Doonah. .... 23 

MARSH, (Mrs.).— Two Old Men's Tales— The Ad- 
miral's Daughter and The Deformed. - 25 

JEI ?.? OL t D- "~ St - Giles and St. James. Illustrated. 37.1 

Dreamer and Worker. ... 05 

SMITH, ALBERT.— ChristopherTadpole. Illus 50 

Tor Hill. 371 

TROLLOhE, (Mrs.).— Chas. Chesterfield. Illus. 50 

NEIL.— Charcoal Sketches. 1st series. Illustrated. 25 

Do. do 2d do. do. 50 

Peter Ploddy, ami-other Oddities. do. 25 

AIM SWORTH.r-THE Lancashire Witches. - . 50 

Sr. James ; ! o,r. the Court of Uueen Anne. - - 25 

Miser's Daughter. 50 

James the Second ; or, the Revolution of lfiSS. 25 

LANDER — Shakspfare and his Friends. - - 50 

The Youth of Shakspeare. - - . . 5C 

The Secret Passion. 50 

(The three bound in 1 vol. cloth, $2 00.) 

MATURIN.— Eva ; or, the Isles of Life and Death. 50 
RODWELL- Old London Bridge; or, the Days of 

Henry VIH. 55 

HALIBURTON.— The Old Judge; or, Life in a 

Colony. By Sam Slick. . ... - 60 
DOUGLAS —Adventures of a Medical Student 50 
TOPFFER.— Rose and Gertrude. ... 23 

FEVAL— The Loves of Paris. Illustrated. - 50 
NAUTICAL LIBKARY:— 

The Cruise of the Midge. ... 50 

Tom Cringle's Log. 50 

Jack Ashore. 25 

The Old Commodore. 25 

Ratlin the Reefer. 25 

The Ocean Child. 25 

Forecastle Yarns. 12j 

Cruise in a Whale Boat. .... 25 
MARRYATT.— Joseph Rushbrook, the Poacher. 25 
HOOTON.— Lancelot Widg'e. - . . . 25 - 

LEWIS.— The Monk. 25 1 

LIPPARD.— The Empire City. - - - - — ■ 
RELLSTAB.— Eighteen Hundred and Twelve ; 

or, Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. 50 

JANIN.— American in Paris During the Winter. 25 

Do. do. do. Summer. 25 

DANIELS, (Mrs.).— My Sister Minnie. - 25 

Georgiana Hammond. 25 

MISCELLANEOUS.— Wilfred Montressor. Il- 
lustrated. 2 vols. I 00 

Jane Shore ; or, the Goldsmith's Wife. - . 25 
Jeremiah Saddlebags' Adventures in the Gold 

Diggins. 100 Comic Engravings. 25 

Mrs. Ellis's Housekeeping RIade Easy. - 12J 

Clement Lorimer. 25 

Miranda : a Tale of the French Revolution. - 25 

Cottage Library. 25 

Cleveland : a Tale of the Church. ... 25 

Wat Tyler, The Bondman. .... 25 

Ann Grey; or, the Two Roses. .... 25 

Richard of York. 25 

Archibald Werner. 50 

The Orphans of Unswalden. • • • 50 

Kate in Search of a Husband. ... 25 * 

Insharlack. 25 

George Barnwell. 25 

Rose Somerville. 25 

George Lovell. By Sheridan Knowles. - - 25 

The Old Convents of Paris. .... 25 

Mysteries of the Criminal Records. ■ - 25 

The First False Step. - - 25 

The Bottle; or, the First Step to Crime. - - 25 

The Pledge ; or, the First Step to Fortune. - 25 

Lodore. — 

WEMYSS— Twenty-six Years in the Life op 

an Actor and Manager. 2 vols. - - - 75 
EVANS —History of all Christian Sects and 

Denominations. Fifteenth Edition. - - 37 
ROBINSON.— California and its Gold Regions: 

. Containing a Large Map of the United Slates. 50 
MEDICAL.— Abernethy's Family Physician ; 

or, Ready Prescribe!'. New edition. - - • JW 

Diseases op Woman. By Dr. Hollick. 1 vol. 

Cloth. - • «. 7 •- ik - - • 1 00 

BEOIUJUtO'S PHYSIOLOoHi CW tlfffc vol. - g£ "' • 1 08 






• oTwuti; 



A*"' 






^o" 





'- ^0< 


















W 







>bV u 



v»o^ 











^ ^ ** 



\* G 






■-•-, 



bV 



^ 4ffl^ "W * 







£9* 

* <s 



5* i-^ 



Bf3' * AT 



V«* 





^ 

* AT 






.4 



% 



4 



f? 






V » * • °» o 






-^.s 










J ^><b 






'«»•»* <0 1 




%/.ym>\/\ 






o. *^T« A 




* <v 







v-cr 











vv 



.o v o "*» o. 



v ^\ 






A CI* 



^oV* 














* V ** 
* 1? ^ 



<* y 






• /LP 















** **o« ;■ 








V " ' * 








r." % a 



<^ ' 






